Switch Theme:

Is Gotcha Moments Cheating?  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
  • No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
  • Times and dates in your local timezone.
  • Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
  • Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
  • Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.




Made in de
Longtime Dakkanaut




Hecaton wrote:
Part of the problem is that GW insists on making players pay for rules - so unless someone engages in piracy it's an unreasonable assumption that they've read every faction they might encounter in a tournament's codex. In saner games - where the rules are free - I wouldn't be as upset about players playing "gotcha!" in the sense that OP meant it.



If that is true and free rules give more license for WAAC-players to gotcha-opponents, GW charging for rules would be a great thing.
   
Made in us
Insect-Infested Nurgle Chaos Lord





In My Lab

Sunny Side Up wrote:
Hecaton wrote:
Part of the problem is that GW insists on making players pay for rules - so unless someone engages in piracy it's an unreasonable assumption that they've read every faction they might encounter in a tournament's codex. In saner games - where the rules are free - I wouldn't be as upset about players playing "gotcha!" in the sense that OP meant it.



If that is true and free rules give more license for WAAC-players to gotcha-opponents, GW charging for rules would be a great thing.
Not what their point was, I think.

If the rules cost $50 a codex, it’s entirely unreasonable to expect you to know different codecs well. That’d make you broke real fast.
If the rules are free, you can peruse them in your free time and learn other armies without dropping to a of dough.

Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne! 
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran




Sunny Side Up wrote:
If that is true and free rules give more license for WAAC-players to gotcha-opponents, GW charging for rules would be a great thing.


It's not a "gotcha" if they've actually read the rules.
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





 Da Boss wrote:
This discussion is quite interesting, but really re-affirms that USRs are better game design than lots of faction specific but basically similar rules with different names. It just makes processing what a unit can do much more simple if you can look at a short list of USRs which are the same as yours, and maybe a couple of faction specific, army wide rules. The way GW games do it at the moment seems to be designed in some way to encourage "gotchas" or to require a lot more explanation, which seems like a strange design choice.


I don't love using the term USR, simply because it generally implies a whole bunch of rule names tacked on that I have to look up in a glossary somewhere. This has always been one of the more convoluted and confusing ways to understand how something works. Consistently written special rules on the other hand, I'm very much in favor of.

Even that has some challenges however. It's just really hard to express flavor without bespoke rule names. LIke in practice, tunneling and leaping are probably both best expressed with the same generic "Nimble, Mobile, etc" style rule that says you get to ignore terrain and models when you move. Players just don't latch on to the cinematics behind that however, to the point where if you initially put it on a bunch of monkeys or something, they're likely to wonder why your mole people jump so well. I don't think there's really a perfect answer, but I am rather in favor of unique names with consistent function and maybe some tags to help with categorizing interactions.
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




 LunarSol wrote:


I don't love using the term USR, simply because it generally implies a whole bunch of rule names tacked on that I have to look up in a glossary somewhere. This has always been one of the more convoluted and confusing ways to understand how something works. Consistently written special rules on the other hand, I'm very much in favor of.

Even that has some challenges however. It's just really hard to express flavor without bespoke rule names. LIke in practice, tunneling and leaping are probably both best expressed with the same generic "Nimble, Mobile, etc" style rule that says you get to ignore terrain and models when you move. Players just don't latch on to the cinematics behind that however, to the point where if you initially put it on a bunch of monkeys or something, they're likely to wonder why your mole people jump so well. I don't think there's really a perfect answer, but I am rather in favor of unique names with consistent function and maybe some tags to help with categorizing interactions.


There are ways around all of these problems. You can have fluff-based names attached to the rule after the USR, for example. You can also have reminder text of the rule itself if space allows on the unit's datasheet, which avoids the need to go look it up. In practice USRs should be common enough that most players would fairly quickly not need to look anything up anyway.

The fluff argument is always a weird one to me. I never heard anyone complain that Terminators, Tau Battlesuits and Flayed Ones weren't fluffy because they all had the same rule even though the background said they arrived on the battlefield in very different ways. The important thing was always that they operated in the game in a way that matched their fluff.
   
Made in us
Frothing Warhound of Chaos




Hecaton wrote:
a_typical_hero wrote:
GW is sending out review copies to a guy who records slowly flipping through all pages and then uploads it to Youtube. The bar for knowing the rules legally without paying money for it is set incredibly low already. Because of this, I'm morally not even a little bit concerned about using Battlescribe or Wahapedia to look up rules for armies I don't play and thus don't own the codex for.


I'm not either, but some TOs are, and in the same vein I generally think it's sportsmanlike to be generous with rules information towards your opponent. And refusing to answer direct questions about your models' rules repeatedly should get a player thrown out.


They both have numerous mistakes… there are plenty TOs that would insta DQ you and for good reason.
   
Made in ca
Kroot Carnivore





I may be in the minority here, but for me, I actually like my games that way. When I play someone who has a new faction, I like that I know the broad strokes of what their deal is, but that I have to learn the specifics of their tactics and strategy from experience. You know, like an actual military commander would have to do.

15000 4000 3500 2500 :tyranid: 2500 1000 1000
1000 1000 1000 1000  
   
Made in ca
Willing Inquisitorial Excruciator





The Frozen North

 LunarSol wrote:
Even that has some challenges however. It's just really hard to express flavor without bespoke rule names. LIke in practice, tunneling and leaping are probably both best expressed with the same generic "Nimble, Mobile, etc" style rule that says you get to ignore terrain and models when you move. Players just don't latch on to the cinematics behind that however, to the point where if you initially put it on a bunch of monkeys or something, they're likely to wonder why your mole people jump so well. I don't think there's really a perfect answer, but I am rather in favor of unique names with consistent function and maybe some tags to help with categorizing interactions.


Here would be my presentation. Take for instance Necron Wraiths and Grey Knight Interceptors:

Personal Teleporters: Interceptors are equipped with personal backpack teleporters, allowing them to "shunt" themselves through Warpspace to another location on the battlefield. This unit has the Ethereal special rule.

Phase Shifters: Canoptek Wraiths possess a dimensional destabilisation matrix, allowing them to phase in and out of sync with the normal space-time continuum. This unit has the Ethereal special rule.

Triggerbaby wrote:In summary, here's your lunch and ask Miss Creaver if she has aloe lotion because I have taken you to school and you have been burned.

Abadabadoobaddon wrote:I too can prove pretty much any assertion I please if I don't count all the evidence that contradicts it.
 
   
Made in fi
Ye Lord of The End Times (and a good guy)





 LunarSol wrote:

Even that has some challenges however. It's just really hard to express flavor without bespoke rule names. LIke in practice, tunneling and leaping are probably both best expressed with the same generic "Nimble, Mobile, etc" style rule that says you get to ignore terrain and models when you move. Players just don't latch on to the cinematics behind that however, to the point where if you initially put it on a bunch of monkeys or something, they're likely to wonder why your mole people jump so well. I don't think there's really a perfect answer, but I am rather in favor of unique names with consistent function and maybe some tags to help with categorizing interactions.


Thing is the special rules in warscroll already have fluff description and the rules.

It's just that the rules are copy&pasted and sometimes with tiny irritating tiny differences you need to be scrambling to double check it's not resulting in actually different result.

You could solve it by replacing the lengthy rule part with reference to common rule.

The fluff text which is actually the flavour wouldn't differ. Just the rules text. Even rule's name doesn't have to change.

Just example from random AOS warscroll I have open.

Shield of the storm:

<fluff text>

Add 1 to save rolls for attacks that target this unit if at least half of the models in this unit(rounding down) are armed with stormstrike glaives.

Okay that's bit trickier rule but how flavour change if cursive would be replaced with something like "parry(stormstrike glaive)"? Okay this is rule even I admit might work better without generalist rule but the point still is. How is that "add 1 to save rolls..." so important for flavour? Isn't the "Shield of the storm" and the fluff text more important for it?

The actual rule shouldn't have any flavour. If the rule is about appearing to reserve via teleport you can and should put that on the <fluff text> part. Not have rule itself "at the end of movement phase the unit appears from teleport in mighty flash. Put models more than 9" from enemy models as the life force interrupts teleport beam. Unit may not move further during movement phase" for example. That's just going to make rule text silly yes?

2021 painted/bought: 538/575 
   
Made in gb
Ship's Officer





Bristol (UK)

I would prefer units to have a proper fluff entry that describes them and what they do, then have the actual rules card be fairly devoid of any fluff.

Universal rules with reminder text is absolutely best.
"Ethereal: this unit ignores intervening terrain when moving"
In the rulebook there can be a more detailed description of Ethereal that attempts to address any edge cases or anything.
   
Made in us
Scarred Ultramarine Tyrannic War Veteran






I understand both sides on this topic, but I think the sudden outcry against 'gotcha moments' is only a symptom of a deeper issue.

The deeper issue is one of rules bloat and over complexity. It is getting harder and harder for us to know all of the rules (Core, Army construction, Detachment, Faction, Sub-faction, Warlord traits, Relics, Stratagems, Unit bespoke rules, Weapons... on and on and on it goes). We try so hard to know as much as we can, but its just gotten to be too much. So when we're caught off guard it feels bad.

Food for thought...

If you're like a lot of other gamers, you play or have played a card game or even a board game that has a card-hand mechanic. Virtually every move / play in these games is a 'gotcha moment' or at least an attempt at one. I understand that W40K is not supposed to have any manner of secrecy like a card game, but at least for me, I am not bothered by the 'gotcha moment' in W40K because I've been conditioned by these other games. I assume this holds true for a lot of W40K players.
   
Made in us
Manhunter





Sticksville, Texas

I really don't believe that "gotcha moments" are cheating, but can easily leave a bad taste in your mouth towards your win if taken out of context.

In a tournament setting, it is not your job to explain all the interactions of your army to your opponent. In a tournament setting it is honestly up to you to know what to look out for in a faction outside of what you play as part of tournament preparation. Truthfully answering questions you are asked though, that is part of playing your army and you should be disgusted with yourself if you go out of your way to leave info out to achieve a victory (my personal opinion, play to win in a tournament without telling lies, so no judgement will be passed if I failed to learn about my opponent).

In casual play or tournament prep though... not telling your opponent about how things work ahead of time just feels dirty. If your list can't win without resorting to relying on your opponent's ignorance of a rules interaction... your list isn't likely to make it far in the first place.

Telling your opponent in casual play/tournament prep about how your list operates is the best way to learn how to play into counters. And not playing an uphill game in practice matches is doing yourself a disservice.
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





Generally speaking gotcha wins have always been the sign of the "big deal in my local meta" mid table kind of players. The truth is, gotcha tricks don't really work against top players, and players that grow accustomed to them hit a ceiling pretty quick, but are also a big reason why lower tier players find tournaments miserable.

The worst part is those players tend to crush their local metas, which both creates players that feel the need to play the same way, and also limits everyone involved from actually improving. It's not strictly cheating, but it's not doing anyone any good.
   
Made in ca
Jinking Ravenwing Land Speeder Pilot



Canada

 NH Gunsmith wrote:
I really don't believe that "gotcha moments" are cheating, but can easily leave a bad taste in your mouth towards your win if taken out of context.

In a tournament setting, it is not your job to explain all the interactions of your army to your opponent. In a tournament setting it is honestly up to you to know what to look out for in a faction outside of what you play as part of tournament preparation. Truthfully answering questions you are asked though, that is part of playing your army and you should be disgusted with yourself if you go out of your way to leave info out to achieve a victory (my personal opinion, play to win in a tournament without telling lies, so no judgement will be passed if I failed to learn about my opponent).

In casual play or tournament prep though... not telling your opponent about how things work ahead of time just feels dirty. If your list can't win without resorting to relying on your opponent's ignorance of a rules interaction... your list isn't likely to make it far in the first place.

Telling your opponent in casual play/tournament prep about how your list operates is the best way to learn how to play into counters. And not playing an uphill game in practice matches is doing yourself a disservice.


I think this post nails it.

All you have to do is fire three rounds a minute, and stand 
   
 
Forum Index » Tournament Discussions
Go to: