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.

Good good

I think the only time it does actually require you to converse are on objectives and cover, as well as you must identify units inside transports. No other conversations are stipulated, howeevr.

Yep, and since it actually isn't covered it's just something you're going to have to sort out at the time and no one is evil/cheating for taking either position.

If you aren't comfortable with telling your opponent they have a clear shot, don't. If your opponent doesn't want to help you optimally place your units, they don't have to.

Which was the point i was making all along - that, as part of the social contract, there are times when you probably *should* help out - in the 10 tables in a line situation, or ina friendly game over a cheeky drink or 5

If you do answer, however, you cannot lie - if you answer in the affirmative, you have to be truthful or simply not answer.

Two people have agreed. Quick, close the thread before someone comes along to disagree!

I disagree!

Man, this makes me glad I have yet to try playing in a tournament yet. At my FLGS, everyone just moves their models, determing LoS for themselves then their opponents get into the argument after all movement has taken place.

If someone asked me the question, I am unsure how I would answer as I have never ran into the situation. My initial reaction is to say that I could not answer his question because when I play, I do not ask my opponents if they have cover in the movement phase. But the more I think about it, it really does not violate any rules asking questions or repositioning models as long as you do not move other models and when including time constraints, I could see this actually being beneficial for both players to playing a complete game. It makes sense that your opponent will always try and move into an advantageous position, baring tactical decisions.

One thing might be to look at this in the light of what if there was a rule that said that this kind of behavior is favorable as it lets each opponent play to the fullest extent of the game. If this was the case, would this rule cause the game to break down or deviate from the original gameplay? Looking at it initially, to me, would mean the fault of giving up cover in the movement phase is the moving player's fault as you know the opponent is given complete truth of all movement situations during their movement phase, just like you are, unlike the way it is now where giving cover is more a combination of both player's movement.

So, with that in mind, it seems to me that the answer is dependent on if the game is ment to be clear-cut like M:tG or more open-ended. If it is suppose to be clear-cut like M:tG, then letting your opponent know when he asks for cover questions in the movement phase makes sense. But I have a sneaking suspension that this game is not clear-cut but more open-ended to allow hobbists to modify the rules, which is not very conducive to tournament play.

If it was up to me, I say that it is up to your opponent to determine if his movement is good enough to determine if their target's are getting cover. Of course, your always welcome to play anyway you wish as that is how the rules were written, in an open-ended mannor. And until GW makes the move to clean up their rules, I think this situation will always cause problems in the tournament scene unless it is specified before hand.

Foo wrote:

ChrisCP wrote:
Actually 'most of these' argument are soundly based on following the rules and the understanding that the turn follows a sequence for a varity of reasons.

Assuming one agrees that the turn sequence is a rigid structure created for enforcement purposes and not as a guide to help people learn the game, perhaps.

I don't see how it makes sense to pretend LoS and Cover are separated from Movement when they're caused by it.

There's a difference between putting the cart before the horse and wanting to be sure the cart's been strapped to the harness before you get the horses running.

By joves! You are correct, the turn structure isn't define clearly in the rules book, henceforth I will assault units in my movement phase as this yeild the greates advantage for me ...Or one could try to play the game by using the rules and reading the rule book...
"THE TURN SEQUENCE
1 The Movement phase
The player can move any of his units that are capable of doing so. See the Movement rules for more details of how to move your forces.
2 The Shooting phase
The player can shoot with any of his units that can see an enemy. See the Shooting rules for more details about how to resolve this.
3 The Assault phase
The player can move any of his units to assault the enemy if they are close enough. Assaults are bloody, desperate affairs where units are fighting in close combat. This means that both
forces can fight in an Assault phase, but only the player whose turn it is can move into an assault. The Assault rules will tell you more about them." Page 9

Again you seem to be missing the point that, if one is trying to force one's opponent to agree on cover y/n for that squad. One can gain a tactical advantage. That one's opponent or even yourself is not compelled to give any information or make any kind of agreement on this untill "TAKE SAVING THROWS" Page 22. And that it's actually the player asking these question - more so if they take issue with "I'm not sure let's work it out in the shooting phase/when you've finished you movement." - whos at fault.

Would this argument be made mute if you say politly, "Cover is worked out in the Shooting phase."? The rules state that is where it is done.
If the questioner then says "But this will speed up the game. (or something along those lines)".
Then the resopnse of "Doing that now is NOT playing THIS game." not in a mear ro demining way, just a fact and admintence of liking this game system.

I agree that in competion cover is a problem, and that a laser pointer sloves it most of the time. In friedly games this is not so much an issuse. However getting cover or not is is not the problem here, it is the act of taking advatage of the other player for your benifit intentionally or not.

An explaination that dertrmining cover or making a "social contract (asking with reply for ther person)" durring the movment phase takes a part of the game away and off balances the game by giving an unfair atvantage to the moving player, thus unsportman of him/her. If you want to check LoS durring the movment phase fine, lean you head/Laser point away, but most of the time you're just spliting hairs. if you have dout, then address at the approprate time instead of stalling the game in the wrong phase because THAT seems unsporting to the other player to watse their time doing something twice (by the rule you would have to check durring the shooting phase anyway).

That's all I got, This is a social question,
P.S. - as far as sportmanship score goes, the TO should think real hard about including it because no one likes losing...

ChrisCP wrote:Again you seem to be missing the point that, if one is trying to force one's opponent to agree on cover y/n for that squad. One can gain a tactical advantage. That one's opponent or even yourself is not compelled to give any information or make any kind of agreement on this untill "TAKE SAVING THROWS" Page 22. And that it's actually the player asking these question - more so if they take issue with "I'm not sure let's work it out in the shooting phase/when you've finished you movement." - whos at fault.

I'm not missing any point. If both players move and clear up LoS and cover concerns while moving, neither player gains any tactical advantage.

To me, it's more important to work out ahead of time so that there's no disagreement later, but obviously I'm concerned with having a personable game whereas you're clearly more concerned with the rules and doing things in a certain order.

Do you never do Running while in the moving phase, either?

Foo wrote:

ChrisCP wrote:Again you seem to be missing the point that, if one is trying to force one's opponent to agree on cover y/n for that squad. One can gain a tactical advantage. That one's opponent or even yourself is not compelled to give any information or make any kind of agreement on this untill "TAKE SAVING THROWS" Page 22. And that it's actually the player asking these question - more so if they take issue with "I'm not sure let's work it out in the shooting phase/when you've finished you movement." - whos at fault.

I'm not missing any point. If both players move and clear up LoS and cover concerns while moving, neither player gains any tactical advantage.

To me, it's more important to work out ahead of time so that there's no disagreement later, but obviously I'm concerned with having a personable game whereas you're clearly more concerned with the rules and doing things in a certain order.

Do you never do Running while in the moving phase, either?

Again, they do. The point you are missing is - Who ever is the defending player is at a disadvantage because the offensive player can move his forces in response to a yay/nay of cover.

It's a fallacy to say 'working it out ahead of time' prevents disagreement, if there's going to disagreement it's now occurring ahead of time.
Again, 'It makes no difference' is false and I've explained to you how such practices can generate an in game advantage.

With running in the shooting phase. It shouldn't be done, as one could have unit A occupying a space at the end of a movement phase which should be busy having unit B in it preparing to run. Allowing for assault that would otherwise be blocked. Other than this one advantage everything else to do with running is a disadvantage for the controlling player - If I don't spot that particular advantage at stake, I guess I have no problem with you moving and running during the movement phase... Just don't roll your run and say "well these guys are going to more 12 that way." Move as far as you’re going to move and then run, cos like, that's how you run, after you've finished moving.

And Personally - no I do not run in the movement phase, I do it in the shooting phase like the rules allow.

Foo wrote:

Do you never do Running while in the moving phase, either?

We know that running in the movement phase is often used to make room for another unit to movement. The run in conjunction with the unit's normal move gives a rhino, land raider, or whatever enough room to squeeze between units or whatever. So in a tournament setting allowing running in the movement phase would depend on whether or not the run would confer this significant advantage. Now, to go back to the main issue, combining elements of the shooting phase with your movement phase is always going to confer a significant tactical advantage. Foo, do you play in many tournaments? I'd suspect that the opinion in this thread is roughly divided between tournament/competitive players who grasp the huge advantage of this type of gameplay, on the one hand, and more casual players who see it as somehow smoothing out gameplay (although how I don't see), on the other. Personally, I would be embarrassed for my opponent iif in a tournament game he tried to pull the gak I describe in my OP. In a tournament game you'd have to have a neck like a jockey's bollox to even ask about cover saves while you were conducting your moves.

Quite amusing post that, given this is a thread started in response to a bat rep by one of the most well known tournament players who think in opposition to you.

Or do you think Dash doesnt realise this can grant an advantage?

It can alleviate arguments in the shooting phase, as a contentious position on the field can be avoided.

Still waiting on any rules quotes from you Olympia, care to provide any?

nosferatu1001 wrote:Quite amusing post that, given this is a thread started in response to a bat rep by one of the most well known tournament players who think in opposition to you.

Or do you think Dash doesnt realise this can grant an advantage?

It can alleviate arguments in the shooting phase, as a contentious position on the field can be avoided.

Still waiting on any rules quotes from you Olympia, care to provide any?

Nos in 4th how many players including yourself correctly used LOS? (I know I'm guilty of playing it wrong) ... simple fact that just because lots of people do doesn't make it right.

Sure you can change the rules so long as you both agree ... but the point is I don't as it gives an advantage and it make little or no difference to the speed of the game (unless he spends an age making absolute sure they're in the right place) ... when the actual LOS check comes up in the shooting phase you can quickly check and see if they do or don't.

I attmepted to correctly use it, was defeated by too many "so, this hill is height 3 area terrain, yeah?" people...same as 7th WHFB and trees. Sigh.

I also didnt use the crowd-source argument, I was simply pointing out the absurdity of Olympias contention (another absurdity, actually) that there was a split with tournament players being against this - when that clearly isnt the case, and was easily disproven.

Additionally: there are no rules being changed. Simply put, the rules do not in any way, shape or form govern the conversations you can have during the game. Absolutely no consideration is given to restricting what you can talk about (it makes some elements mandatory, see above, but imposes no restrictions) therefore this is NOT a case of TMIR coming into play.

It also can make a big difference to the speed of the game. Some calls are very difficult to make from your side of the table, and going around a line of 10 tables, past gamers / gaming bags / model trays precariously balanced on the edge of chairs / etc to check can increase the aggravation of an already long day.

I simply hold to the social contract theory, even in a competition (which shold, imho, not have "money" on the line anyway - trophies are one thing, actual goods another), whereby there are some situations where this is a good thing.

Fair enough ... I still don't see it being a issue simply because I can place models without going round ... but end of the day its between the two players. While I'm not going to help (or ask for it ether) I cannot complain if you do so with you're opponent, any more then when I watch to players go ah there close enough and pushed them the last 1/4" into close combat.

Funny enough, I had an opponent yesterday doing exactly what olympia suggested. He forced me to run around just two tables(three in a row, we had the middle one) multiple times to check LoS for my big shootas, rokkits or deffguns. He basically answered "not my problem" whenever I asked him whether I had clear LoS to something, even during shooting, as long as I didn't declare and "lock" a target to shoot at. After that, he'd usually argue to have a cover save, even if only a branch of a tree was hiding the helmet of one scorpion. He wasn't a really fun opponent.

However, because of his bad sportsmanship his dice revolted and not a single serpent managed to dodge a deff rolla. Justice has been done.

Jidmah wrote:Funny enough, I had an opponent yesterday doing exactly what olympia suggested. He forced me to run around just two tables(three in a row, we had the middle one) multiple times to check LoS for my big shootas, rokkits or deffguns. He basically answered "not my problem" whenever I asked him whether I had clear LoS to something, even during shooting, as long as I didn't declare and "lock" a target to shoot at. After that, he'd usually argue to have a cover save, even if only a branch of a tree was hiding the helmet of one scorpion. He wasn't a really fun opponent.

However, because of his bad sportsmanship his dice revolted and not a single serpent managed to dodge a deff rolla. Justice has been done.

Movement phase is one thing but not checking for you in the shooting phase ... well the guys TFG

Most arguments contra movement phase would fully back him up even during shooting though.

Jidmah wrote:Most arguments contra movement phase would fully back him up even during shooting though.

I really don't see how.

Jidmah wrote:Funny enough, I had an opponent yesterday doing exactly what olympia suggested. He forced me to run around just two tables(three in a row, we had the middle one) multiple times to check LoS for my big shootas, rokkits or deffguns. He basically answered "not my problem" whenever I asked him whether I had clear LoS to something, even during shooting, as long as I didn't declare and "lock" a target to shoot at. After that, he'd usually argue to have a cover save, even if only a branch of a tree was hiding the helmet of one scorpion. He wasn't a really fun opponent.

However, because of his bad sportsmanship his dice revolted and not a single serpent managed to dodge a deff rolla. Justice has been done.

See the dice never lie, he was being rude ("even if only a branch of a tree was hiding the helmet of one scorpion.") and they stuck a rudder up him


But funnily enough, you didn't need to run around the tables, he did.
"As usual, check the firers’ line of sight by taking a good look from behind their heads, and ‘see what they see’." Pg 21
This is from "When are models in Cover?" So if he doubted you assesment that his models were not in cover from the PoV of your firing models he'd have to come around the table to have a look

Monster Rain wrote:

Jidmah wrote:Most arguments contra movement phase would fully back him up even during shooting though.

I really don't see how.

As you don't check LoS until you've actually committed to shooting a target, you might shoot another unit if you're giving something a cover save.

The point here is that it isn't incumbent upon your opponent to help one determine the perfect placement of their models to ensure that they have optimal shots at your models.

If you're not being compliant in the shooting phase however, you are being a tool.

MR - except under the social contract idea, where you and I know I CAN quite happily place them to hoot your brilliantly, however in order to do so its going to take a lot of moving round the table(s) in the way to do so.

Sometimes the expedient route is the "correct" one in a social game.

Monster Rain wrote:

Jidmah wrote:Most arguments contra movement phase would fully back him up even during shooting though.

I really don't see how.

This is quite hypocritical, don't you think? Just pull any of your posts from this thread, and apply it to checking LoS before declaring a target unit. Works perfectly fine.

So how is choosing between which unit to shoot based on LoS different in shooting than in moving?

One argument was that you may only check LoS when shooting/actually taking cover saves, which was what my opponent was insisting on.

Another was that clearing that discussing cover before saves would grant me an advantage. How is this advantage any different from me checking whether I chose the scorpion with the stick in the face or dire avengers out in the open to shoot at?

How are you not helping determining whether they get a cover save(to quote you)?

So jidmah, let me see if I understand. You are now claiming that is is fine to declare a target, measure range, and then change your mind if the target is deserving of a cover save?

You've misunderstood.

olympia wrote:So jidmah, let me see if I understand. You are now claiming that is is fine to declare a target, measure range, and then change your mind if the target is deserving of a cover save?

You're either misunderstanding, trolling, or unable to figure out LoS without using something with a measuring scale on it.

How can you possibly claim anything about measuring from my posts?

Plus, my flash gits can do that.

Wait. The fact that determining cover should be done in the shooting phase is an argument that cover shouldn't be determined in the shooting phase?

Think about that again, Jidmah.

Just to wade in and offer my 2 irrelevant cents:

If I am midway through moving a unit - and then realise that said move was actually quite a stupid idea - am I allowed to move back to where I was, and re-move?

Monster Rain wrote:Wait. The fact that determining cover should be done in the shooting phase is an argument that cover shouldn't be determined in the shooting phase?

Think about that again, Jidmah.

So, putting words in my mouth now? I was arguing based on your posts so far. Do you want me to quote them all?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

liam0404 wrote:Just to wade in and offer my 2 irrelevant cents:

If I am midway through moving a unit - and then realise that said move was actually quite a stupid idea - am I allowed to move back to where I was, and re-move?

Yup, that's what the rules say. You should have a way to find the original position though.