What rules do you abide by when you play 40K?
For example, mine is:
•I must obey the BRB.
•Even the stupid rules.
•Even the rule that says FMCs have to start the game in Gliding mode.
•I may not take 2 Flyrants in a 500 point game, even if the rules say I can.
•I am not allowed to call anyone TFG or WAAC except myself.
•Not allowed to touch my opponent's models without permission.
•I must ask my opponent's permission to use 2+ rerollables in casual games.
•Psychological warfare is a dick move.
•I must use common sense, and use common sense when figuring out what "common sense" is.
Jimsolo wrote: How is psychological warfare a dick move? Unless I'm misunderstanding what you mean, it's an integral part of the game.
Psychological warfare is insulting your opponent or their skills to make them play poorly. What you refer to is gameplay.
I don't think I've ever met someone who thinks that's "psychological warfare." Do you have players that think/do that? That's...really pathetic.
Personal "code of honor?"
1. Dice not flat on the table are to be refilled, as are dice that fall out of your hand during the shuckle. Even if they are flat, but land on a base or on area terrain, I reroll them.
2. For vehicles with odd sections that may or may not be hull, I let my opponent decide. (Drop Pod doors and Raider prows are the two most frequent examples.)
3. I don't roll dice when my opponent isn't looking unless he's expressly told me to.
4. Before forfeiting, I will ask my opponent's permission, and usually ask if they legitimately think there's a possibility of me turning my defeat around.
5. I always play RAW unless the RAI is crystal clear.
6. In a caveat to the above: I also play the popular interpretation of the rules, even if I "know" the popular interpretation is wrong.
I always help my opponent out on rules they may have been forgetting, that's advantageous to them, and not necessarily to me. Like to re-roll their Ones on Preferred Enemy, or to roll for their reserves and such.
1. First and foremost, go into the game to have fun. This goes for not just myself, but for my opponent. This is a game. Games are designed to be fun. Not having fun is a waste of both yours and my own time.
2. To play by the rules to the best of our abilities.
3. To never 'take back' a bad move, or to retroactively perform something I missed that could be potentially beneficial to myself (such as saves of some kind). One cannot learn to remember these things on their own if they do not suffer the consequences. (And as such, I forget far less than ever before)
4. To never touch my opponents models unless given permission to do so. It is not my property, I have zero right to touch it without their say.
5. To always shake my opponents hand at the beginning and end of every game. If a handshake is not in their repertoire, then a fist bump works just as well. Some sort of sign that I enjoyed my game, win or lose, and to show my respect to you as a fellow player of this game.
6. To always ensure that we have at least one, heart felt laugh during the game. Das wut dat Orks are for!
Jimsolo wrote: How is psychological warfare a dick move? Unless I'm misunderstanding what you mean, it's an integral part of the game.
Because "psychological warfare" usually refers to dishonest tactics like trying to distract your opponent so that they make a mistake, trying to rush them through their turn and constantly asking "are you done yet?" so that they forget to move/shoot/assault with a unit, etc. It's things that aren't technically against the rules of the game, but are an attempt to win because of what you do while you're playing instead of how well you play the game.
Psychological Warfare is standing next to your opponent on their side of the table, politely dismantling his dude in his deployment zone. Talk about disrupting their game plan!
Jimsolo wrote: How is psychological warfare a dick move? Unless I'm misunderstanding what you mean, it's an integral part of the game.
Because "psychological warfare" usually refers to dishonest tactics like trying to distract your opponent so that they make a mistake, trying to rush them through their turn and constantly asking "are you done yet?" so that they forget to move/shoot/assault with a unit, etc. It's things that aren't technically against the rules of the game, but are an attempt to win because of what you do while you're playing instead of how well you play the game.
I consider it stuff like
"Im going to shoot the StormRaven"
With a response like
"Hmm, Thats an interesting move, but ok"
Gets them to second guess.
hotsauceman1 wrote: I consider it stuff like
"Im going to shoot the StormRaven"
With a response like
"Hmm, Thats an interesting move, but ok"
Gets them to second guess.
And that's what I mean by dishonest behavior: you're trying to be as annoying as possible so you can get your opponent to make a mistake. It's the kind of thing that only people who suck at the game and have no other hope of winning have to resort to.
Peregrine, I disagree. A good player will never be a great player unitl they can disarm their opponent via correct use of psychology and charisma. And that, my friend, is the "heart" of Psychological Warfare.
hotsauceman1 wrote: How, How is making my opponent second guess his move bad?
Because you're doing it by trying to be as obnoxious as possible and making the game a lot less enjoyable for your opponent. If they just tell you to STFU and ignore you then your "strategy" accomplishes nothing. It can only work if you can force them to pay attention to you instead of just playing the game.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
jeffersonian000 wrote: Peregrine, I disagree. A good player will never be a great player unitl they can disarm their opponent via correct use of psychology and charisma. And that, my friend, is the "heart" of Psychological Warfare.
That's like saying a good player can never be great until they master the use of loaded dice. A great player doesn't need psychological gimmicks to win, they just win by being better at the game. Having to resort to trying to be so annoying that your opponent makes a mistake is the kind of thing you do when you don't think that your in-game actions will be enough to win.
hotsauceman1 wrote: How, How is making my opponent second guess his move bad?
Because you're doing it by trying to be as obnoxious as possible and making the game a lot less enjoyable for your opponent. If they just tell you to STFU and ignore you then your "strategy" accomplishes nothing. It can only work if you can force them to pay attention to you instead of just playing the game.
No its not, if you are CONFIDENT in your skills, then it will work.
Psychological warfare (and resisting psychological warfare even moreso) is an integral part of face-to-face gaming. Even the 'poker face', not letting your opponent see how you really feel about the developments in the game is a simple form of psychological warfare.
Gaming skill can only take you so far, unless you're the best gamer to walk the face of the Earth by a large margin. Sooner or later you will encounter people of equal skill who employ psychological warfare, and consequently win more.
1. Communicate clearly. If you're rolling dice, explain what they're for and what the number you need is. If you're not sure about a rule ask, if a conflict/confusing situation comes up get perspectives before making judgement calls.
2. Pay attention. Don't walk away from the table, don't sit reading a book during your opponent's turn. Don't lose interest and pack up four turns in.
3. Check boundaries. Don't start handling the other guy's stuff without asking, don't analyze or criticize his plays without checking if it's okay. Even if you love postmorteming the game and figuring out how you could have played better some people don't like you dissecting their choices, ask before starting.
4. Play to your opponent. Prep different lists and ask ahead of time how competitive your opponent is prepared to be. Don't be afraid to ease off if the game is turning into a curbstomp, be prepared to go for lesser victories even if the main objective is out of reach. Close games are fun for everyone, one-sided turn-three wipes are fun for nobody.
5. Play to the rules. If it's your longtime group of friends with a set of standard house rules that's great, but if you're wandering into a new gamestore for a pick-up game against someone you just met assume you're playing everything completely rules-as-written. We know GW can't write clear rules to save their lives, if your interpretation of what the rulebook says differs from the other guy's and one sentence each fails to convince the other side roll off for whose interpretation stands and then stay consistent for the rest of the game.
6. Be respectful. There is a time and a place for trash talk; we're playing a strategy game here. This is not the time or the place. Expect the same standards of behavior here as in any conversation; if you have things to bitch about, set them aside and bitch about them later. Be positive in the moment.
LordBlades wrote: Sooner or later you will encounter people of equal skill who employ psychological warfare, and consequently win more.
And then you ignore everything they say that isn't a statement about what in-game actions they are taking, and their whole "psychological warfare" gimmick instantly becomes worthless. Well, not entirely worthless. It does tell you that they're the kind of person who will eagerly trade having an enjoyable game where neither player tries to annoy the other into submission for a 0.000001% increased chance of winning.
Rule 1: Have fun and always try to ensure my opponent is too.
Rule 2: No Cheating.
Rule 3: I run my lists with No 'List Tailoring'.
Rule 4: Always shake hands with the opponent at the beginning/end of every game.
Rule 5: Always be respectful and try to be patient for as much as is seemly/possible, especially with new players.
Rule 6: Stick to the rulebooks/codex as much as possible but be prepared to give some wiggle room on stupid or unfair rulings. (Complete agreement on both parties.)
As for Psychological warfare, it is part of the game and as long as it is not aggressive/dick-ish I have no issue with it, it is an integral part of wargaming and lets not forget actual war.
I don't employ it myself, but I wouldn't hold it against an opponent for trying.
LordBlades wrote: Sooner or later you will encounter people of equal skill who employ psychological warfare, and consequently win more.
And then you ignore everything they say that isn't a statement about what in-game actions they are taking, and their whole "psychological warfare" gimmick instantly becomes worthless. Well, not entirely worthless. It does tell you that they're the kind of person who will eagerly trade having an enjoyable game where neither player tries to annoy the other into submission for a 0.000001% increased chance of winning.
why do you equate psychological warfare with annoying? You don't have to annoy the other player to make him second guess their calls. Just make him lose concentration (which can be even achieved by friendly conversation)
LordBlades wrote: why do you equate psychological warfare with annoying? You don't have to annoy the other player to make him second guess their calls.
Saying things like "are you sure you want to do that" is just annoying. You and I both know that you're not giving me honest advice, so all you're doing is making pointless noise and delaying my dice rolls.
LordBlades wrote: why do you equate psychological warfare with annoying? You don't have to annoy the other player to make him second guess their calls.
Saying things like "are you sure you want to do that" is just annoying. You and I both know that you're not giving me honest advice, so all you're doing is making pointless noise and delaying my dice rolls.
But graciously commenting on stuff like 'what nicely painted models you have' or 'cool conversion, how did you do that' just at the right time is slightly less annoying and can still break concentration.
Same for pretending to be thinking/calculating/there is something bigger behind unimportant moves to give just a couple of examples.
LordBlades wrote: But graciously commenting on stuff like 'what nicely painted models you have' or 'cool conversion, how did you do that' just at the right time is slightly less annoying and can still break concentration.
Ok, so it's not annoying, it's just being an insincere . If you're only complimenting someone's models so that you can distract them and hope to get them to make a mistake then you really need to reevaluate your priorities in life.
Same for pretending to be thinking/calculating/there is something bigger behind unimportant moves to give just a couple of examples.
IOW, wasting time instead of just rolling the dice and finishing the game at an efficient pace. How exactly is that NOT annoying?
LordBlades wrote: Or maybe you jsut genuinely like the guy's models, you're just picking the right (or wrong) time to say it?
If you genuinely want to give a compliment then do it before or after the game. Using a compliment as a strategic distraction means that you care much less about the compliment itself than how it can be used to gain some tiny advantage in the game. That's the kind of calculating behavior that sociopaths embrace, not something you should do if you're genuinely just trying to be nice.
Also, do you mean to imply thinking and calculating is annoying?
Only if you're just pretending to think and calculate about a trivial decision because of "psychological warfare". If you're honestly thinking about a decision that's fine. If you know exactly what you're going to do and you're just pretending to think so that I'll make a mistake then stop wasting my time.
Peregrine has the right of it here, in my opinion.
My personal rules are:
- take everything in stride. Laugh about my own mistakes.
- play by the rules. Never bend anything for advantage.
- if I'm losing horribly, enjoy the story created and the spectacle of painted miniatures arranged on a tabletop.
- don't touch other's miniatures without permission, and once given hold them by the base at all times.
1) The priority is to ensure the opponent has a fun game, no matter what. Regardless of the score, if my opponent didn't enjoy the game, I've lost and failed.
2) If it's cool, screw the rules! So long as the opponent agrees, I'm more than happy to cast the rules aside for the sake of cool stuff. Things like fighting a combat past the last turn to see who would have won, allowing an impossible move (say a SM captain jumping an imassable gap to get into combat, with a 'jump test' to see if he made it) , or any kind of other change that makes the game more fun for both sides.
IOW, wasting time instead of just rolling the dice and finishing the game at an efficient pace. How exactly is that NOT annoying?
If I wanted to play against a mute robot, I'd play a computer game, or just set up two lists from my own army and try to objectively play both.
I play multiplayer games because I want to play it with another player.
Also psych warfare isn't just limited to words. Even some moves in the game can fit the definition. EG If I knew my opponent wasn't really up on his knowledge of my army (my list and codex are fair game for my opponent at all times during a game,) and I had a unit in a vulnerable spot, say Mephy close to a bunch of meganobz, (I would literally never let meph get close to meganobz, but anyway...) I might move a bunch of assault marines nearby hoping that he'll view them as more dangerous, and hoping that his knowledge is lacking in exactly how good of an opportunity he has to take out Mephy before he goes on a rampage through the rest of his dudes.
Even the smallest of actions in a game can be taken as a psychological attack. It's also a standard part of playing with another person. You can play the opponent, rather than just try to use them as a replacement for a computer AI for your 1 player boardgame.
I'd also say, that what you mean by psychological warfare is just simply being a dick. You are there to have fun and even these "interesting move, but okay" kind of stuff is annoying and takes the fun out of it. When the game is competitive, not only for fun, tournament e.g., then it changes a bit. Then you don't need to/shouldn't help your opponent, but still have to be fair and don't be a dick.
Really, the only rule to have a good game is just don't be a dick.
Edit: If you need to ask yourself the question "was that a dickish move?" than it pretty likely was.
Mine are:
1. dice that fall out of your grip during a mass roll, and any that miss the table, are rerolled. When a die is cocked, if we can tell that simply removing the obstruction directly away from the die will obviously make it land on a certain number, then that's the number.
2. I try to match list-power based on how extensive my opponent's experience and collection are. If you have 20000 points and have played since RT, I'll bring some of my higher tier stuff. If you barely make 1500 and you can still count the number of games you've played, I'll use junk like Dantewing or other less than ideal lists. I also don't bring a flyer If I know you don't have anti air in your collection, and don't bring high AV if your collection lacks a way to deal with it.
2a. I make every friendly list have at least some armor value and some toughness accessible to the opponent.
3. If I forget something that would benefit me, I have the entire phase to remember it, even if we've already done that shooting/combat or whatever. If you forget a rule that would be detrimental to me, you also have the entire phase to remember it, else it gets lost.
On the other hand, if you forget a rule from your own army that is actually a detriment to you, (such as stubborn when you wanted the unit to run, or forgetting to do the wounds from a mob rule ork result) we will do our best to time travel and fix it.
4. Lists I don't use unless being competitive: either all-armor or no-armor spam, null or almost null deployment lists. Big lords of war. Those tend to make games very one sided and not fun for the unprepared.
5. I don't turn down FW, IA, old codices, LOW, or even house rules if you ask beforehand. I do expect to be warned that "you want to bring an unspecified big (500+ points) lord of war" before I pick a list, but you don't need to tell me which one.
6. I will always declare what the dice are for before rolling them, and make sure my opponent is watching and ready.
LordBlades wrote: Gaming skill can only take you so far, unless you're the best gamer to walk the face of the Earth by a large margin. Sooner or later you will encounter people of equal skill who employ psychological warfare, and consequently win more.
Maybe that's the problem. This is clearly WAAC. And that's not really a good thing. Neither for you nor your opponent. If you really want to win that much, you have some problems with yourself.
Saying things like "are you sure you want to do that" is just annoying. You and I both know that you're not giving me honest advice, so all you're doing is making pointless noise and delaying my dice rolls.
It sounds like playing you would be the worst 40k experience I could ever have. If I rolled up to my LGS to play a guy who just wanted to throw dice and for me to keep my mouth shut rather than actually be social, I would reconsider if even playing was worth it. I'm in the game to play with people, not robots. I have plenty of one player strategy games on PC and consoles.
Use common sense in poorly written rules- RAI over RAW(atleast in most situations)
Don't touch other guy's minis without his permission
Don't try to use stupid mistakes the opponent makes for your advantage unless he himself is doing so(say drop pod lands, he forgets to move rest of his army and i don't allow him to do so since he grabbed the dice and said he shoots even if he pulled it back half a second later)
Be friendly
If playing competitive/cheesy list, warn the opponent in advance and ESPECIALLY the new players, play against them with such list only if they have no one else to play and want to learn the basics, if possible, change the list
Forge world is absolutely A-OK if you have the up to date rules(or know them)
Goal is to win the purpose is to have fun!
LordBlades wrote: Gaming skill can only take you so far, unless you're the best gamer to walk the face of the Earth by a large margin. Sooner or later you will encounter people of equal skill who employ psychological warfare, and consequently win more.
Maybe that's the problem. This is clearly WAAC. And that's not really a good thing. Neither for you nor your opponent. If you really want to win that much, you have some problems with yourself.
I don't agree. Sometimes games get to a situation where a battle of wits actually makes a difference, and we heartily enjoy it when it shows up.
I view psychological warfare as "any move I make with the fact that the opponent is human and not a computer in mind." Which covers a VERY wide range of moves. Against a computer that would simply look at the board and calculate odds, I may not make the move at all. But against a player, I might move that unit say...second or third so that it seems unassuming, and then go on moving the rest of my dudes, hoping that he'll either not notice or forget just how important that unit's position is.
It's nice to feel like you brought more to the table than just a list and some dice, but rather also brought your mind to the game as well.
1. Clear up clarification between unclear rules (ie TWC, Psychic Phase in general) if necessary
2. Make sure I have BRB handy if need be and play by rules
3. Make sure board has sufficient terrain
4. Make sure opponent knows exactly what I have in my army and vice versa (lists printed out are good for this)
5. Make opponent aware of what I'm doing (ie, moving a unit, firing with this unit, running, charging)
6. Prompt the opponent for Jink and Overwatch before I make the rolls
7. Make sure opponent can see dice rolls and vice versa
8. Be respectful - don't touch opponents models without asking, don't trash-talk unless it's banter with someone I know, have fun, don't put them down
9. Be modest if I win and give tips out to theopponent on what they did well and what they could improve. Compliment the opponnent's tactics if I lose and congratulate them on the win
10. Thank opponent for the game and shake hands.
In regard to Rule 4, I almost always take the most competitive list I can field. In my opinion, the best way to help someone improve is to field the toughest lists so that they can learn how to beat an army. If they refuse to play against that list, I will either let them edit their list to account for mine, or create another list that is a bit more casual. It is, after all, a game.
There is an 11th rule, which only really comes into play against competitive opponents, which is employing the use of psychological warfare. But as Peregrine has touched upon, I consider there to be a fine line between psychological warfare and being annoying and unsportsmanlike.
'That's an interesting move, but OK' is an example of psychological warfare. It makes your opponent second guess whether it's the best thing to do what they were going to do.
'This unit is going to kill whatever it fires at' is another example. It can potentially put that unit higher up on the priority list, leaving the rest of the army unharmed.
'Are you finished yet?' is an example of being a grade A douche bag. You're trying to make your opponent miss out on using their stuff so you can get to your turn quicker.
Thankfully, I'm yet to encounter an opponent who employs the use of 'Are you finished yet?' at my new gaming club. I did have one such opponent at my old gaming club and eloquently responded with, 'No, I've only just started with my Shooting Phase. Let's see how quickly this unit dies'. Re-focused their attention on the battlefield, which was just as well as I cut a bloody pathway through their army that turn.
I dunno, if I heard 'Interesting move, but ok' or any variation thereof more than once in the game, I'd chalk it up as being equally irritating as 'are you done yet'.
If you want to talk and socialize with your opponent during the game then just do so. Doing so under some pretense of 'psychological warfare' just feels so petty to me.
Jimsolo wrote: How is psychological warfare a dick move? Unless I'm misunderstanding what you mean, it's an integral part of the game.
Psychological warfare is insulting your opponent or their skills to make them play poorly. What you refer to is gameplay.
Nope. That's just straight up abuse/being a dick.
Psychological warfare is an art, and when done properly can be a thing of beauty. Just looks at Ferguson and Rafa Benitez a few years ago in the Premier League. I wouldn't recommend it for games of goblins though.
LordBlades wrote: Or maybe you jsut genuinely like the guy's models, you're just picking the right (or wrong) time to say it?
If you genuinely want to give a compliment then do it before or after the game. Using a compliment as a strategic distraction means that you care much less about the compliment itself than how it can be used to gain some tiny advantage in the game. That's the kind of calculating behavior that sociopaths embrace, not something you should do if you're genuinely just trying to be nice.
Also, do you mean to imply thinking and calculating is annoying?
Only if you're just pretending to think and calculate about a trivial decision because of "psychological warfare". If you're honestly thinking about a decision that's fine. If you know exactly what you're going to do and you're just pretending to think so that I'll make a mistake then stop wasting my time.
Wowsa.
Kurt Cobain nailed this: Just because you're paranoid, don't mean they're not after you...
I can't imagine playing someone who thinks that talking is a gamey bastards move. Games can be pretty boring for good long chunks, and a bit of chatter breaks it up a bit.
A lad I played recently deployed his Black Coach behind some dogs but within a charge range of my Cold Ones Cav (odd set up for AMBUSH!). "Are you really sure you want to put your beautifully painted model there?" I asked.
He thought it through, and decide that yeah, that was fine. I had it in combat from Turn 2 and dead in Turn 3.
He was a top lad, and I was genuinely asking him he thought that was wise. No gameyness or being a twunt invloved.
My "view" (more than code) is:
1. Rules
1a. I'll follow Brb, Codices and faqs rules.
1b. If or when interpretation comes into play, I'll suggest the logical approach firat, then try and come to an agreement, the more objective the better.
1c. Agree and abide to the army restrictions, be them points, unbound, cad number, named characters and so on.
2. Dice
2a. I made a dice tower to avoid awkward rolls, lost dice et cetera, so I'll use it, if my opponent doesn't have problems with it.
2b. In any case, agree beforehand to when rerolling is allowed or not.
3. Interaction
3a. Never curse, especially with younger people present, and ask the opponent at least to not swear.
3b. Never touch opponent's model without permission and anywhere else than the base. Casualties are removed by the owner, always.
3c. More valid in more crowded places: deodorant is a nice invention, but soap is even a better one.
1) Play by the rules or you are not playing a "game". 2) Do your best, if you find you have overly outmatched your opponent, set new goals to make it harder for yourself (handicap).
3) Always have fun, find fun in what you do. If you cannot, figure out what was going wrong and don't let it happen again.
4) If convenient to do so, help out your opponent with small rule stuff or reminders only if they appreciate the assistance (new player, distracted / tired).
This is pretty much to ensure for selfish reasons I always enjoy my hobby and can guarantee almost everyone is happy to play a game with me.
- When things go against me, I will try to make light of it. If I am unable to do so, then I will simply keep my cool and not get angry.
- If I remember an important rule that my opponent appears to have forgotten, I will remind him of it.
- Likewise, if they have forgotten something like declaring a charge, shooting with a unit or any such, I will allow them to do so. This is obviously providing that they remember in a reasonable time-frame. Remembering that they haven't shot with a unit during the subsequent assault phase is fine. If you remember 3 turns later, no, sorry.
- I will not use any powers that I consider broken. e.g. If I roll Invisibility, then I will either ask if I can reroll it, or simply not cast it.
List Building:
- Whenever your 1500pt list comes to 1497pts, a puppy dies.
- None of my Warlords will have an AV value.
- I will never build an army around trying to get off some broken power, combo any such.
- I will avoid Death Stars. If 2 Sith Lords couldn't make them work, what chance to I stand?
- Allies, Supplements, Fliers, Super Heavies and Knights can sod off and die in agony.
- I will try to give my Warlord at least a bit of gear, even when it costs twice as much as it should (*cough* Imperial Guard *Cough*). Having a bare-bones HQ just feels really lacking in character.
LordBlades wrote: Gaming skill can only take you so far, unless you're the best gamer to walk the face of the Earth by a large margin. Sooner or later you will encounter people of equal skill who employ psychological warfare, and consequently win more.
Maybe that's the problem. This is clearly WAAC. And that's not really a good thing. Neither for you nor your opponent. If you really want to win that much, you have some problems with yourself.
The line between legit strategy and what's called WAAC around here is different from person to person. Personally I really enjoy doimg my best to hide my real game plan through on and off-table misdirection and tryong to guess my opponent's despite his efforts to hide it.
1. Follow the rules
2. Cocked dice are rerolled dice
3. Be chill
4. If kids are present or my opponent finds it offensive, watch my tongue.
5. Ask permission before picking up an opponent's model, and if permission is granted, pick up by the base if applicable (vehicles typically being the exception)
6. Avoid sharing dice unless absolutely necessary for game play.
7. Always be pleasant, even if my opponent is TFG x11
8. Beat TFG every. Single. Time.
9. Use lists that I have to fight tooth and nail to win with. Lists that I actually have to figure out a POA.
10. When playing an unskilled opponent, figure out a way to make it as fun of a game for him too. If playing against said player regularly, the occasional self-indulgent slaughter is okay.
11. Have fun.
1. Follow the rules.
2. No Riptides.
3. Psychological Warfare, is confined to the game table. Moving figures to make him second guess moves is fine. Talking to him to make him second guess is not.
4. Really, no Riptides.
5. List tailoring against a faction is fine, against a player its not.
6. Blaming dice is fine if say you roll 5 1s on 5 dice, but don't take it out on your opponent. They didn't roll the dice.
7. Riptides do not fit a Tau army.
AndrewC wrote: 1. Follow the rules.
2. No Riptides.
3. Psychological Warfare, is confined to the game table. Moving figures to make him second guess moves is fine. Talking to him to make him second guess is not.
4. Really, no Riptides.
5. List tailoring against a faction is fine, against a player its not.
6. Blaming dice is fine if say you roll 5 1s on 5 dice, but don't take it out on your opponent. They didn't roll the dice.
7. Riptides do not fit a Tau army.
Cheers
PS I only have a Tau army, and not one Riptide!
Anyway... mine are
1. 1st game against someone only bring infantry, 2nd game bring vehicles, 3rd game go all out.
2. Never touch the opponent's models, even when given permission, I am walking bad luck.
3. Dice has to be flat and inside the rolling tray.
4. No "aaaaaagh" or "uuuuuuugh"ing in a game, just unpolite and takes away the fun for the opponent (so just be nice in general)
5. I always bring terrain, give the opponent the option to play with it. They almost always say yea, more terrain = more fun.
6. If unsure about a rule always rule in the opposing players favor.
7. Winner buys drinks.
Well, seriously, I just try to have fun. If there is an ambiguous rule, I'll just let my opponent have it, and rules-lawyer it later.
I don't play with people I don't like, except maybe to stomp them once And as you say, I never touch my opponents models, including rolling dice near them (we use dice trays anyhow). My army list, including point costs is on a spreadsheet and my opponent can look at it any time, and I have the relevant codex pages for unusual units photocopied with my list.
Same rules for me as I apply to myself in any situation in any place.
1. Dont be a jerk
2. Treat everyone with dignity and respect always being polite. Sometimes that is hard to do when there is someone being absolutely rude and impolite to me first but I still manage to pull it off.
3. Always be honest.
niv-mizzet wrote:It sounds like playing you would be the worst 40k experience I could ever have. If I rolled up to my LGS to play a guy who just wanted to throw dice and for me to keep my mouth shut rather than actually be social, I would reconsider if even playing was worth it. I'm in the game to play with people, not robots. I have plenty of one player strategy games on PC and consoles.
Why is it so hard to understand the difference between talking because you want to have a social event, and talking as nothing more than a coldly calculated attempt to distract your opponent with the conversation and hope that they make a mistake? One is having a pleasant afternoon of social gaming, the other is the kind of manipulative behavior that sociopaths embrace.
Also psych warfare isn't just limited to words. Even some moves in the game can fit the definition. EG If I knew my opponent wasn't really up on his knowledge of my army (my list and codex are fair game for my opponent at all times during a game,) and I had a unit in a vulnerable spot, say Mephy close to a bunch of meganobz, (I would literally never let meph get close to meganobz, but anyway...) I might move a bunch of assault marines nearby hoping that he'll view them as more dangerous, and hoping that his knowledge is lacking in exactly how good of an opportunity he has to take out Mephy before he goes on a rampage through the rest of his dudes.
That's not the same thing at all, and not what most people mean when they talk about "psychological warfare". Using a deceptive strategy within the rules is a legitimate way of playing the game. Trying to distract your opponent outside the game so that they make a mistake is not.
I can't imagine playing someone who thinks that talking is a gamey bastards move.
Then maybe you should go back and read the posts where people explicitly suggested using a "conversation" as an opportunity to distract their opponent and gain a tiny advantage.
I can't imagine playing someone who thinks that talking is a gamey bastards move.
Then maybe you should go back and read the posts where people explicitly suggested using a "conversation" as an opportunity to distract their opponent and gain a tiny advantage.
I suppose you could politely ask your opponent to keep schtum whilst you have your turn, and count yourself fortunate if they carry on with the game!
But if it's such a tiny advantage what does it matter anyway? It just seems like you'd look for any excuse to pack up and storm off if the game wasn't going your way, to be honest.
- Always play with a smile. It makes for more pleasant games, and helps unnerve people who don't follow the spirit of the game.
- No going back in time - if a mistake is made and we realise it a phase on, it stays made.
- If someone makes a mistake that requires time travel to fix, give them a concession over a bad dice roll in the future.
- Play down to the wire. Even if it looks like you've lost, keep playing, because cheating people of real wins is petty.
- If the game is cut short, treat it as if the game ended there, don' insist 'well, if we had one more turn, that would have happened, so I won even though I was losing'.
- Never touch anybody's model without permission.
- If there's any doubt as to the legitimacy of any die, reroll it.
- The game should be as much Xanatos Speed Chess as a strategic wargame. The winner is the one who can break the gambit... or outsmart it.
I can't imagine playing someone who thinks that talking is a gamey bastards move.
Then maybe you should go back and read the posts where people explicitly suggested using a "conversation" as an opportunity to distract their opponent and gain a tiny advantage.
I suppose you could politely ask your opponent to keep schtum whilst you have your turn, and count yourself fortunate if they carry on with the game!
But if it's such a tiny advantage what does it matter anyway? It just seems like you'd look for any excuse to pack up and storm off if the game wasn't going your way, to be honest.
Seriously? He's never said talking during a game is bad. What he is against ( and I agree with) is making conversation/complementing their models at a calculated time to knock their balance off. You don't want to talk, you want them to mess up. It's very two faced, rude and pointless. But by all means, have a proper, real conversation as we play.
I don't get why people cannot grasp this difference.
I can't imagine playing someone who thinks that talking is a gamey bastards move.
Then maybe you should go back and read the posts where people explicitly suggested using a "conversation" as an opportunity to distract their opponent and gain a tiny advantage.
I suppose you could politely ask your opponent to keep schtum whilst you have your turn, and count yourself fortunate if they carry on with the game!
But if it's such a tiny advantage what does it matter anyway? It just seems like you'd look for any excuse to pack up and storm off if the game wasn't going your way, to be honest.
Seriously? He's never said talking during a game is bad. What he is against ( and I agree with) is making conversation/complementing their models at a calculated time to knock their balance off. You don't want to talk, you want them to mess up. It's very two faced, rude and pointless. But by all means, have a proper, real conversation as we play.
I don't get why people cannot grasp this difference.
I can't imagine playing someone who thinks that talking is a gamey bastards move.
Then maybe you should go back and read the posts where people explicitly suggested using a "conversation" as an opportunity to distract their opponent and gain a tiny advantage.
I suppose you could politely ask your opponent to keep schtum whilst you have your turn, and count yourself fortunate if they carry on with the game!
But if it's such a tiny advantage what does it matter anyway? It just seems like you'd look for any excuse to pack up and storm off if the game wasn't going your way, to be honest.
Seriously? He's never said talking during a game is bad. What he is against ( and I agree with) is making conversation/complementing their models at a calculated time to knock their balance off. You don't want to talk, you want them to mess up. It's very two faced, rude and pointless. But by all means, have a proper, real conversation as we play.
I don't get why people cannot grasp this difference.
How can you tell the difference though?
That was my thought as well. If the person is being obvious in their attempts to distract or disrupt you then they aren't doing a terribly good job at it
I only play with my friends so my rules reflect that:
1. Honesty is the best policy. Call your 6 cocked if it's cocked and don't argue about it. If you have to rely on your opponent forgetting reserve rolls or FNP to win, you don't deserve the win.
2. Agree before the game on which house rules to enforce and enforce them. This usually means no stealing initiative, no mulligans after the appropriate phase ends, etc.
3. Tone down the competitive side and focus on having an enjoyable game for both parties.
4. Cheese is allowed in minor amounts. Use your best builds but don't ruin the fun.
5. If you're not sure about a rule, look it up.
6. Dropped dice count if you make it clear that you want it to count before a result is clear (usually through body language, see rule 1). Dice off the table are to be verbally "called" in the same way.
I can't imagine playing someone who thinks that talking is a gamey bastards move.
Then maybe you should go back and read the posts where people explicitly suggested using a "conversation" as an opportunity to distract their opponent and gain a tiny advantage.
I suppose you could politely ask your opponent to keep schtum whilst you have your turn, and count yourself fortunate if they carry on with the game!
But if it's such a tiny advantage what does it matter anyway? It just seems like you'd look for any excuse to pack up and storm off if the game wasn't going your way, to be honest.
Seriously? He's never said talking during a game is bad. What he is against ( and I agree with) is making conversation/complementing their models at a calculated time to knock their balance off. You don't want to talk, you want them to mess up. It's very two faced, rude and pointless. But by all means, have a proper, real conversation as we play.
I don't get why people cannot grasp this difference.
How can you tell the difference though?
That was my thought as well. If the person is being obvious in their attempts to distract or disrupt you then they aren't doing a terribly good job at it
No I don't mean in the game, you wouldn't be able to I guess. What I mean is all the people posting here saying that they only talk or complement models to get an advantage. That's just being a dick, that's what I have a problem with.
In the real world it definitely is more difficult to tell, yeah.
It's like cheating. People that cheat are just childish and immature, and obviously its not on, but you can't always tell if someone's cheating. But that doesn't make it okay.
You can have a real conversation with someone and then when they lose they can accuse you of trying to distract them with it as an excuse.
Seriously, players should be able to talk and play at the same time without any ill effects.
I would say that if someone is purposely doing it to throw you off your game, they are being "dicks". However, they are being "dicks" that are (or should be) wasting their time.
I'm able to do both so feel free to try it on me. It being a "dick" move, you will only see me having a real conversation or making actual compliments without that in mind.
Either way, it should be a waste of time, so not really worth addressing beyond laughing at those who try it.
Generally my local meta is 'don't be a dick to win'. But no one's going to stop you being a WAACTFG, it's generally pretty looked down upon and people probably will only play one game with you. That said, during a local campaign/mini-tournament type thing we had going on, everyone's respect for each other went out the window, and the last three way game between me and two other guys was a 3000 point game where I brought 4 heldrakes (back when they were stupidly OP;I allied BL with regular CSM), one guy brought 3 riptides, and the other guy brought something like 6 wave serpents or something.
My gaming rules (not 40K exclusive):
- Wheaton's Law above all else.
- I'm not the only person there to have fun.
- If it's not fun at the table, you need to step away from the table - if you stick around, it might get un-fun for others as well.
- Cheer the other guy; only chastise yourself (but sparingly - see previous rules).
I can't imagine playing someone who thinks that talking is a gamey bastards move.
Then maybe you should go back and read the posts where people explicitly suggested using a "conversation" as an opportunity to distract their opponent and gain a tiny advantage.
I suppose you could politely ask your opponent to keep schtum whilst you have your turn, and count yourself fortunate if they carry on with the game!
But if it's such a tiny advantage what does it matter anyway? It just seems like you'd look for any excuse to pack up and storm off if the game wasn't going your way, to be honest.
Seriously? He's never said talking during a game is bad. What he is against ( and I agree with) is making conversation/complementing their models at a calculated time to knock their balance off. You don't want to talk, you want them to mess up. It's very two faced, rude and pointless. But by all means, have a proper, real conversation as we play.
I don't get why people cannot grasp this difference.
How can you tell the difference though?
That was my thought as well. If the person is being obvious in their attempts to distract or disrupt you then they aren't doing a terribly good job at it
You can tell the difference by asking yourself why you are about to say "X." If the answer is in order to distract your opponent or hurt his chances of winning or something like this, then you know you're being a dick. If the answer is because you want to socialise with your opponent and have a pleasant conversation as you play, then by all means, go ahead.
When you play, ask yourself if anything you are doing that is not strictly part of the game is intended to hurt their chances, and if the answer is yes, then don't do it. This isn't hard to grasp. This includes taking your opponent to lunch beforehand and suggesting he order something that won't settle in his stomach so that he wants to finish early, or deliberately not using air conditioning, or pretty much anything you can think of. The bottom line is, don't be a dick.
Sure, it's hard to tell if your opponent is being a dick sometimes, or if he just has poor timing, but the onus is on the individual not to be a dick, and not to be able to spot dicks. Just don't be a dick. Number one rule. And don't touch other people's models without permission, and if given, touch them by the base.
calamarialldayerrday wrote: You can tell the difference by asking yourself why you are about to say "X." If the answer is in order to distract your opponent or hurt his chances of winning or something like this, then you know you're being a dick. If the answer is because you want to socialise with your opponent and have a pleasant conversation as you play, then by all means, go ahead.
Well of course you would know if you're trying to mess up your opponent, I was talking about whether your opponent would know
If your opponent can't tell the difference between you doing it to distract them or just having a polite conversation I don't see why it would even bear mentioning that it may or may not be a dick move.
It's not remotely like cheating, getting distracted because your opponent is talking to you is entirely your fault, it really doesn't matter whether or not they were doing it intentionally. If it was like billiards where there's an etiquette of not talking while your opponent takes a shot I might consider it a dick move... but wargaming is not even remotely like that. People talk during wargames, that's just the way it is, if my opponent wants to try and use that talking to distract me that's their prerogative... it's not going to work but they can try if they want... I'm not going to call them a dick for it (if I can even tell that's what they're trying to do).
If your opponent is being genuinely obnoxious then that's a different issue. Some people are just dicks, but I don't really see that as the same thing
I have only one rule but it is a rule I hold dearly.
When I play a game, I want all parties involved to have a good time. If my opponent tries to cheat, I will bot have a good time and I will quit. If my opponent is whiney for the Xth time because he failed 1 out of his 10 2+ saves, I will not enjoy myself and I will quit (and I can't imagine him having fun either).
At my local GW I know who I should avoid and who I can have very enjoyable games with. I know what I can pull with some people and what not to do. There's this guy who really enjoys every game to the last second and if he's down to his last squad of marines, he'll enjoy it if I send in a squad of 10 cultists instead of my Khorne lord with 7-13 Str6 AP2 I6 attacks.
I know most people would call this 'prolonging the game unnecesarily' but him and me both actually enjoy those last fights because even though he lost, insane gak tends to happen when you're throwing around dice. So why the feth would I not try to chop up bio-engineered super-humans with dudes in ragged cloth and steel pipes.
- If its questionable whether there are 4 or 5 of my models under the template weapon, I always say 5.
- If my opponent thinks they have cover, I give them cover.
- Talk about and agree on terrain, cocked dice, and possible rules issues before the game starts.
- Be clear about what I'm doing at all times, to avoid disputes. I.e., if I'm preparing for a charge, measure the distance from my unit to the unit it will be charging before moving in the movement phase, and agree with the opponent before I move about how long the charge will be. Especially if it's a crucial charge, or if model placement will be tricky due to terrain etc.
- My opponent is not automatically a bad person if I lose the game.
- No whining.
Respect your opponent.
Never quit if the dice are against you.
No super competitive spirit in casual games.
No Taudar. Just no.
Expect no less from my opponent.
Well, aside from the general ones expected when anyone plays (Cocked dice, be nice, don't touch unless told/asked to), I have a few that mark me as more than likely the most casual player you'll ever meet. Each line under the rules is a short demonstration of the rule in action.
1. Always attempt err on the side of badass.
- I never show up to a game without a leather jacket, t-shirt from a concert I've been to, or my hair done up like I'm part of Motley Crue. Bonus points for all three at once.
2. If in doubt about a tactical decision that may win you the game, ALWAYS refer to rule number one.
-Grav Chute Insertion is, therefore, always the most tactically sound decision. Especially in cities.
3. If an army list does not adhere to rule number one, it is not worth playing and should be scrapped.
-I once wrote an army list for an IG gunline. It was promptly replaced with an army of ballsy space paratroopers and screaming CC-based Guardsmen.
4. When deciding between giving a squad any weapon or a flamer, the latter choice best adheres to the First Rule. No exceptions.
-This is why my Veteran Sniper squads always had one Heavy Flamer in 5th edition. Yes, they DID used to be 20 point upgrades.
5. Majority rules.
-It just does.
6. I am not the majority. Therefore, if the opponent disagrees upon my view of something in relation to the First Rule, I am to make every attempt to do something else equally badass.
-Elysian Drop Troops; no army adheres to the First Rule more than they. Unfortunately, they are inherently beardy and I will have no beard on my neck if someone calls me on it.
7. In-game, no action is more in accordance with the First Rule than standing firm in the face of all oppression. I'll not walk away simply due to disappointment or irritation.
-Besides, go watch Paths of Glory and see what happens to Guardsmen who retreat, even if they had a good reason.
And finally, the only time I ever get competitive... Which usually is only in relation to TFG.
8. If I'm going to willingly let the opponent throw cheese at me, I'm going to smack him down (in-game) until he gives me some whine to go with it.
-Get it? Cuz cheese and wine? Yeah...
1) You and your opponent are both there to have fun. Don't bring an army that you know will out-class your opponent and make for an unfun game.
2) Agree before the game starts what all the Terrain is in terms of area terrain, and the cover save that it grants.
3) If your opponent makes a minor mistake (I forgot to roll to rally my troops, Oops we're in assault and I forgot to fire with this one unit, etc), let them correct it. They will extend the same courtesy to you.
4) In a rules conflict, defer to your opponent in the case of a judgement call. In the case of a rule conundrum, roll a D6 and get on with the game.
5) Do not get drunk and yell obscenities and act like a 12 year old when Eldrad fails a Leadership check in Turn 1, and runs off the board. You are a grown man in his 30's.
1. Main objective is to enjoy the game. In normal games if someone forgets to do something important, I allow it without problems. If there seems to be a dispute about something, just roll off and find the solution later if it can´t be found in a reasonable amount of time, and play it correctly the next time. Treat opponents with respect, and try to have a friendly, humorous and relaxed atmosphere. Varies when in tournaments.
2. No cheating - if one cheats he must be bad enough to need the extra "help" in order to perform
3. Rules played as RAW, even silly ones. It´s a game and it has rules, and that´s it. Comparing WH40K to "realism" I find a bit futile.
4. I try to maintain competitive level of play without resulting to outright broken combos - I find it fun winning while using a toned down, reasonably competitive TAC list. In tournaments this is different however.
5. I don´t tailor my army against certain armytypes or a player or his playstyle. I build my army with a mindset that I might face anything one can imagine.
are we still on the No fliers kick? I mean now every army can deal with them.
Every army can deal with them, but not every army can deal with them equally, and not every player owns a flier or a means to deal with them. Some people have limited budgets. It's the same with superheavies. Yeah, most armies have a way of countering a superheavy (IoM just uses another superheavy) but not everyone owns that counter (and if FW makes your hard counter, it gets very costly). Best way to deal with it? Don't bring it. Infantry, tanks, and bikes are the rock, paper, and scissors that this game was built on. I don't need dynamite or Spock fething it up. My opponent doesn't either.
I'm sorry what? That makes no sense. That is like saying I can't bring tanks because you can't deal with them. Every army has cheap access to anti air and anti super heavie
hotsauceman1 wrote: I'm sorry what? That makes no sense. That is like saying I can't bring tanks because you can't deal with them. Every army has cheap access to anti air and anti super heavie
Ok then, without mentioning fliers, name one cheap AA option in the DE codex.
Twinlinked heat lances.
Ravages
Seriously hate against fliers & superheavies are just stupid. They are so easy to kill and fun to play, or you could ignore them and their limited move pattern
vipoid wrote: Ok then, without mentioning fliers, name one cheap AA option in the DE codex.
Why put arbitrary restrictions on what AA you can take? This is like demanding that your army have lots of "anti-horde" units that all have STR 8 AP 2 or better, and ignoring all those lasguns/HBs/pulse rifles/etc.
1. Don't be a dick. Have fun, laugh about it, and don't take things seriously.
2. No list tailoring. If you really want to be competitive, allow your opponent some wiggle room (say to throw in a few AT or some Skyfire), but don't wait for him to show you his, then bring an exact counter to it.
3. Don't touch other people's stuff without asking. It's not cool and models break super easy.
4. Be flexible on the rules. Unless its pretty clear what the answer is (2d6 to charge, for example), take the time to discuss what the correct answer is.
5. I personally allow redos if its reasonable. If you missed the psychic phase or forgot to move something before declaring shooting, go ahead and redo it.
7. If the die is cocked, reroll it. I'll usually ask the opponent if he thinks its cocked, but I always say to reroll it.
Why put arbitrary restrictions on what AA you can take?
Because you shouldn't need to take fliers to counter other fliers.
That is not good game design.
Saying "I shouldnt need X for X" is a flawed argument.
Watch
"I dont shouldnt need to take heavy guns for anti-tank"
Because you can say it about anything
Code of honour sounds far too epic and chivalrous for what is essentially a group of people crowded around a table with models on.
Code of conduct, or simply good behaviour sounds more appropriate.
And on that note, the rest is fairly obvious. Play by the rules, discuss discrepancies and come to an amicable agreement if issues with the BRB arise. Be friendly and supportive.
are we still on the No fliers kick? I mean now every army can deal with them.
Every army can deal with them, but not every army can deal with them equally, and not every player owns a flier or a means to deal with them. Some people have limited budgets. It's the same with superheavies. Yeah, most armies have a way of countering a superheavy (IoM just uses another superheavy) but not everyone owns that counter (and if FW makes your hard counter, it gets very costly). Best way to deal with it? Don't bring it. Infantry, tanks, and bikes are the rock, paper, and scissors that this game was built on. I don't need dynamite or Spock fething it up. My opponent doesn't either.
This is a flawed argument. I agree with you somewhat regarding superheavies (IMO, they should not be a part of standard 40k games). But Flyers are fine.
Every army is supposed to have a weakness (e.g. Tyranids can't deal with AV13/14 well, DE have trouble with Flyers, Tau have trouble with AV13/14, Necrons struggle with MC, etc). This keeps the game in balance and allows other armies to win against your army by exploiting your army's weakness. The moment you start taking those weaknesses away from a battlefield, certain armies start to gain advantages over other armies.
While it's true that not everyone will have a means to counter a certain unit type that the opponent brings, the opponent shouldn't have to restrict themselves in army building to accommodate for the negligence the opponent had when making their list for what they do have in possession.
Wulfmar wrote: Code of honour sounds far too epic and chivalrous for what is essentially a group of people crowded around a table with models on.
Code of conduct, or simply good behaviour sounds more appropriate.
And on that note, the rest is fairly obvious. Play by the rules, discuss discrepancies and come to an amicable agreement if issues with the BRB arise. Be friendly and supportive.
Every army is supposed to have a weakness (e.g. Tyranids can't deal with AV13/14 well, DE have trouble with Flyers, Tau have trouble with AV13/14, Necrons struggle with MC, etc). This keeps the game in balance
What you've just said is actually an example of really awful game design - because it means matches will be frequently won at the list-building stage, before a single unit has even been deployed.
Whereas, in fact, games should be won based on what you do on the table.
A tyranid player should not be on the back-foot because he happens to be facing a Necron AV13 wall. A DE player should not suffer because his opponent is spamming fliers. This is demonstrably the opposite of balance. One player is starting off with a strong advantage over the other, just because of their respective armies.
I really don't understand why so many people consider this Rock, Paper Scissors approach to be a good idea. Let alone why they think unbalance somehow represents balance.
I agree, it's pretty poor. You may as well play Rock, Paper Scissors at that point. Weaknesses should be more like; Dark Eldar are really fast and hit hard, but they fold like a wet paper towel if they get hit back. They still have a weakness, but it isn't decided by what list your opponent builds, or what army they choose to play.
ImAGeek wrote: I agree, it's pretty poor. You may as well play Rock, Paper Scissors at that point. Weaknesses should be more like; Dark Eldar are really fast and hit hard, but they fold like a wet paper towel if they get hit back. They still have a weakness, but it isn't decided by what list your opponent builds, or what army they choose to play.
Our gaming circle consist only of 3 people, so we're gathering all in the house from our third companion. Only rule for me when I visit him for a game: bring a beer :-) and have lots of fun
(Including bashing his eldar for how powerful they are)
1. No quitting. (Heroic things and/or funny things can still happen).
2. If I don't know what to do - do the fluffy thing.
3. Don't do anything which is totally non-fluffy.
4. Have fun.
Otto Weston wrote: 1. No quitting. (Heroic things and/or funny things can still happen).
2. If I don't know what to do - do the fluffy thing.
3. Don't do anything which is totally non-fluffy.
4. Have fun.
While I generally agree -- I wouldn't quit because of a streak of bad dice rolls, or a mistake, for instance -- if the battle is hopeless, I will happily concede so that we can start a new game and squeeze in a "best 2 out of 3"
ImAGeek wrote: I agree, it's pretty poor. You may as well play Rock, Paper Scissors at that point. Weaknesses should be more like; Dark Eldar are really fast and hit hard, but they fold like a wet paper towel if they get hit back. They still have a weakness, but it isn't decided by what list your opponent builds, or what army they choose to play.
Exactly.
Except that paper can beat the scissors, because paper is able to score more victory points than scissors.
I'm really glad that I play with a small group of friends (of the wife) rather than against some of the people in this thread.
Some of you people really have a..... questionable.... idea of what a fun game (you know, that includes for both people) involves.
If both opponents are having a genuinely good time, other than the inevitable scourge of bad dice rolling, then you are playing the game "right".
If you actively acknowledge that you are doing something that is intended to break you opponent's concentration, you indeed are TFG, and are taking a social game involving lovingly painted army men way, way to seriously.
If you actively acknowledge that you are doing something that is intended to break you opponent's concentration, you indeed are TFG, and are taking a social game involving lovingly painted army men way, way to seriously.
Has it actually occurred to you that for some people the psychological aspect of playing a face-to-face game can actually be fun?
Yup, I have, and there is a difference between the basic psychological qualities innate to anything that is a contest (even among best friends), and being a troll for your own advantage.
There may be a razor-thin line of excuse when playing in a tournament, but at it's heart, the majority of times that we are playing miniatures wargaming, it is supposed to be a fun time of camaraderie between friends. If you are actively doing things to unsettle your opponent, you are taking a game far too seriously. Sure someone's got to win, as with any contest, but if you are doing things like making them second-guess themselves with crappy little comments, or distracting them to give yourself some teeny advantage.....just.. wow.
If you have to do those things, you really need to step back and think about what is even at stake for winning. Even when I lose, the worth I got out of the game is the time I got to hang out with a buddy and laugh and de-stress. Oddly, that's the same thing I get when I win.
1. Follow the Rules the best I can and be willing to allow my opponent to check rules for my models and vice versa.
2. Have fun
3. Be willing to change up lists in regards to level of opponent or wether they want a competitive friendly game or just a stupid crazy fun one.
4. Don't be a cocky prick.
5. Bringing my A game when someone else brings their A game. My best vs his/her best!
Just my main ones and I am sorry, psychological warfare is not "un-sportsman like" or "a &!&$ move, it is part of the game and a legitimate military tactic. That being said I will clarify what I mean before someone takes it out of context:
-Psychological Warfare could be something as simple as bringing a Fish of Fury Tau list instead of a Crisis Suit one, especially in your local meta. It makes your opponent think differently and potentially change up his tactics, is it your fault for bringing another part of your army? No. Is it your opponents fault for assuming that you would be bringing the same army like always? Yes. Personally I really enjoy that aspect of the game, making me think differently and see the game/fight from a different angle. A new challenge to be overcome.
-Anything in regards to talking loudly, going over to your opponents table edge and messing with him or his models or things of that nature is where I agree that is uncalled for but those are the only cases. Taking a new army list or unit that you usually do not take to change things up is not nor should not be frowned upon.
Yipyioh wrote: Well, aside from the general ones expected when anyone plays (Cocked dice, be nice, don't touch unless told/asked to), I have a few that mark me as more than likely the most casual player you'll ever meet. Each line under the rules is a short demonstration of the rule in action.
1. Always attempt err on the side of badass.
- I never show up to a game without a leather jacket, t-shirt from a concert I've been to, or my hair done up like I'm part of Motley Crue. Bonus points for all three at once.
2. If in doubt about a tactical decision that may win you the game, ALWAYS refer to rule number one.
-Grav Chute Insertion is, therefore, always the most tactically sound decision. Especially in cities.
3. If an army list does not adhere to rule number one, it is not worth playing and should be scrapped.
-I once wrote an army list for an IG gunline. It was promptly replaced with an army of ballsy space paratroopers and screaming CC-based Guardsmen.
4. When deciding between giving a squad any weapon or a flamer, the latter choice best adheres to the First Rule. No exceptions.
-This is why my Veteran Sniper squads always had one Heavy Flamer in 5th edition. Yes, they DID used to be 20 point upgrades.
5. Majority rules.
-It just does.
6. I am not the majority. Therefore, if the opponent disagrees upon my view of something in relation to the First Rule, I am to make every attempt to do something else equally badass.
-Elysian Drop Troops; no army adheres to the First Rule more than they. Unfortunately, they are inherently beardy and I will have no beard on my neck if someone calls me on it.
7. In-game, no action is more in accordance with the First Rule than standing firm in the face of all oppression. I'll not walk away simply due to disappointment or irritation.
-Besides, go watch Paths of Glory and see what happens to Guardsmen who retreat, even if they had a good reason.
And finally, the only time I ever get competitive... Which usually is only in relation to TFG.
8. If I'm going to willingly let the opponent throw cheese at me, I'm going to smack him down (in-game) until he gives me some whine to go with it.
-Get it? Cuz cheese and wine? Yeah...
Just, yes. I am adding your rule #1 to my list. Thank you for brightening my morning
I got a simple one-
Play for fun first, winning second.
It does not hit the table till it's fully painted
Just because you can cheese doesn't mean you should
Don't spam one thing. It's going to be a quick, one-sided game if you do.
Do not throw necrons or forgeworld at the new player
Don't bring anything your opponent does not stand a chance against
Have lists ready beforehand, not after hearing what my opponent is bringing
I have 2 main rules, play for the fun and try to make it as fun as possible for my opponent.
I like to chat a lot during games but seriously can't believe some people actually use this as a tactic to improve their chances of winning a game of toy soldiers, i have learned something new today but kinda wish i had not.
If you have to ask yourself "should I not do this", general rule of thumb is if you have to ask yourself that question, it should be a no brainer you already know the answer to.
-never target an opponent's newest model.
-Don't use invisibility in casual play. That's just a move.
-Don't call the units "spess mehreens", "dork angels", "elves in SPESS!", etc. more than once.
-never criticize another player's army without them asking you to
-don't roll your dice at an opponent's units
-and lastly, never, EVER use multiple FMC in a <1000p game
I think the first and most important rule in any form of face-to-face gaming is, be cool.
People you actually enjoy playing against win lose or draw can be hard to find and you won't know if someone's going to be one until you've played them - and when you do find them, wouldn't you prefer it if they'd gladly set their army up opposite yours again any day?
-It's a game. No feelings should be hurt.
-If someone is playing at my house, offer them a beer.
-Laugh and enjoy the game.
-Compliment and be enthusiastic about someones unique play style, don't critique someone because they aren't running a "tournament list"
3. To never 'take back' a bad move, or to retroactively perform something I missed that could be potentially beneficial to myself (such as saves of some kind). One cannot learn to remember these things on their own if they do not suffer the consequences. (And as such, I forget far less than ever before)
4. To never touch my opponents models unless given permission to do so. It is not my property, I have zero right to touch it without their say.
For #3 it depends how it's caught for me. I remember reminding one of my opponents he forgot to do something on his turn, even though doing so put me at a disadvantage (it was a reroll to pen a Battlewagon). In the end my battlewagon blew up, but I thought it was at least the sporting thing to do was to let him know that he could trust me that I'm not trying to angle for a win.
Can't say that about my opponent after though. Spent more time on his phone near the last two turns of our game on his phone checking out the Ork FAQ than he was worried about playing. Despite the fact he was indeed winning, he was 100% certain that the ramshackle table was FAQ'd out in 6ed. He's terrible for knowing his own book, let alone it was annoying enough he spent tons of time trying to find a way to get out of my ramshackle table. I understand if there's a confusion, but if I say that "no it wasn't FAQ'd out"; usually I mean it. Lo and behold, the trukk explodes anyways.
#4 is a big one for me too. I'll occasionally ask another player to help me pack my Orks as I'm usually forty or so models more than they have. But unless the other guy says so, or he's a good friend of mine, I'm not touching their models. Some people though just grab willy nilly. I asked politely one player not to grab my models off the table once. My Kommando's just got liquidated by the IG mortar tank thing, and he just proceeded to grab all six of them in his one ham hand and put them in my bin. Uh, I know they're Orks; but I'd rather not have to glue them back together because some other dude with his meat hooks tossed my orks in a bin.
. If you're only complimenting someone's models so that you can distract them and hope to get them to make a mistake then you really need to reevaluate your priorities in life.
