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.

@ Stelek & Polonius-

Beautiful! I am now wanting to assimilate and compile all of those into one 'Spot the Loser' list.

There has to be more out there, I'm just trying to think and be funny at the same time.

Sad, isn't it?

There are 2 things here.

The first is back seat generaling. This is where someone not in the game walks over and starts giving their tactical advice to one side or another. This is a big no no. The game is between the 2 players and you should keep your nose out of it. Do not discuss bad moves. Do not discuss what the other player will do on their turn. Do not discuss what you would do if you were one of the players. Do not talk about the power or weakness of units on the board. Do not discuss how far you think it is from one unit to another or if you think something is in range to shoot or charge. All of these topics are taboo.

Now, the other thing is pointing out incorrect rule usage or blatant cheating. This sort of thing I feel is the duty of people watching games. I, for one, have been playing 40k for years and years, across 4 editions. There are a lot of rules piled up in my head and not all of them are from this edition. So, I appreciate it when people point out something I screwed up. It makes me a better player and more able to help others do things correctly in the future. On the flip side, I feel compelled to point out when others are screwing up the rules. The trick with doing this though is in presentation. I always try to point out the mistake in the form of a question (any Jeopardy fans?). So in the case of shooting over the land raider, “I thought you guys said you couldn’t shoot over that last turn?” or perhaps “Can you fire over that land raider? I thought it was blocking your line of sight.” Just present things in a fashion of you not being quite sure of how things work and get them to explain it to you. In general though, I always try to be digging though the rule book as I ask so I can find the relevant printed rule to present to all involved. In general, with any rule question, the first place to start after you’ve raised concern is the rule book. People (myself included) screw up rules all the time and getting a good look at the text while letting your opponents (or players you are watching) know that you may be wrong (even if you know you are right) but you want to look it up to be sure, makes things go smoother. Also, be prepared to admit you messed up once you look up the rule, because sometimes that happens. If you are a 3rd party to the game, you may want to look up the rule before you call them on it or risk being a pest.

The ignorant-Someone who has not read the entire rule book , stands adamant that a witchblade wound's on a 2+ and ignores armour saves.

The (insert word here)-Not only do they not know their own codex but you know it better than they do, plus they constantly forget their codex so you can't prove them wrong..

All Knowing(Abuse placed here)-Varient of the backseat driver only he's your opponent. knows every codex inside out extremly annoying when they know it better than you, but you won't risk proving him wrong because youll just make him more confident if he's right. He is always right..

Stelek wrote:Wily females. Sorry sister, I'm married and irregardless of how many tattoos/piercings/goth/cleavage you show me, I'm NOT interested and I AM going to crush your army, even with your 400 pound gorilla of a husband/slack jawed freak/fool staring at me the entire game. I fear not you nor your baggage.

All attemps at social engineering are in my honest opinion, nothing more than trying to cheat and it's never worked once.

Stelek, I smiled and/or laughed through that whole freaking post.
You made some good points there.

You know... you are one gruff cuss... but d@mned if I don't like you, regardless.

I do have an actual question...

Re: "All attempts at social engineering..."

Are you saying that applies if your opponent is a stranger and tries to be sociable, friendly, etc? Or are you referring to a specific STYLE of social engineering?

Take care, man!

Eric

What about.....
"Time Leech'-Knows there is a limited time to play a game. Uses this to thier advantage by....
Making sure there is 2" between EVERY model in thier horde-Nid Army, even when you clearly explain to them(In the interests of a faster game-you watched set-up and cried as 1 hour went by) that you do not use blast-markers/templates. Always has the rule at hand that gives them the advantage, but stands there humming and hawing if you remind him/her about a more obscure ruling. Tries to handle your Figs. after H2H, to maximise thier army's effect. Will KILL you if you try to touch his/hers.
PS. Yes, they always think that they are right too. Will ask for a 'recount' after a Tourney, as his sportsmanship score was indicative of his/her Social skills.

PPS- YUCK!!

MagickalMemories wrote:

Stelek wrote:Wily females. Sorry sister, I'm married and irregardless of how many tattoos/piercings/goth/cleavage you show me, I'm NOT interested and I AM going to crush your army, even with your 400 pound gorilla of a husband/slack jawed freak/fool staring at me the entire game. I fear not you nor your baggage.

All attemps at social engineering are in my honest opinion, nothing more than trying to cheat and it's never worked once.

Stelek, I smiled and/or laughed through that whole freaking post.
You made some good points there.

You know... you are one gruff cuss... but d@mned if I don't like you, regardless.

I do have an actual question...

Re: "All attempts at social engineering..."

Are you saying that applies if your opponent is a stranger and tries to be sociable, friendly, etc? Or are you referring to a specific STYLE of social engineering?

Take care, man!

Eric

There is a difference between being friendly and pretending to be friendly. You can't always tell the difference.

There is a difference between being friendly and pretending to be friendly. You can't always tell the difference.

Oh, no. I understand that.
LOL
At the 'Ardboys tourney, I encountered a couple of each. One of the "fakers" was really good ad disguising it... until he got on a forum he didn't know my friend is also on & bashed my friend (for being right). The other faker is a guy who makes poor attempts at trying to be social and tries to pretend that he's nice, but his atitude gets the best of him too often, undermining his attempts.

Then again, all 3 of our group played against one guy that we'd have liked to have as part of our regular game group.

I was just trying to figure out if Stelek just said, "To h3ll with all of 'em," or tried to distinguish between the real ones & fakers.

L8r)


Eric

Once the cheat/rule breaker is identified... I might ask a questions, as in... I try to let people figure out what they are doing.

"How did you draw line of site to that? I was just curious."

This usually happens only when I KNOW that one person knows the rules better than the other and is exploiting that fact.

one i have seen and this a hard one to spot is the two heads are better then one . this is when you have two or more people that share an army on the board and what happans when one move's his troops so does the other and what happans they fugg some of the movement or fight overmoves and planning makeing the game longer

Musical teleporting transport guy, aka the quantum rhino: He has a mechanized infantry army with several identical transports carrying different types of troops. For some reason the best choice for the given situation comes out of that vehicle. You can't find the exact position of those fire dragons, but there is a high probability of them being in or around the transport heading toward your armor.

That's a good one Grignard. I almost never pay attention to how my opponent deploys. It usually does no good anyway, as I'm lucky if his stuff is painted, never mind individually marked vehicles with numbers or icons or such. I have considered insisting my opponent mark his vehicles with masking tape and a number, on the bottom if necessary, and numbering his army list entries to match transports.

I have considered insisting my opponent mark his vehicles with masking tape and a number, on the bottom if necessary, and numbering his army list entries to match transports.

You should. I do this with my transports all the time now. It's a reasonable demand.

I go one step farther. I request that they place one model (like the champion, Sgt, etc) from the unit on TOP of the Rhino "because I'd like to keep them straight for targeting purposes."

Failing that, I ask them repeatedly, during every move phase, "What was in THAT Rhino again?"


It gets annoying & most end up just following my initial request by turn 3.


Eric

The rules don't entitle you to know which unit is in which vehicle. If your opponent is agreeable, fair enough, but I would never accept such a condition, and my answer to your question would always be "Mind your own business" until such a time as that unit should have to/want to disembark.

MagickalMemories wrote:I go one step farther. I request that they place one model (like the champion, Sgt, etc) from the unit on TOP of the Rhino "because I'd like to keep them straight for targeting purposes."


Eric

That's what I do when I run my DE, since I think it's logical my opponent should know what's in an open topped vehicle coming towards his lines. With closed vehicles, I go along with the idea that was stated where the one running them only needs to keep an honest record that can be checked, when needed, of who's in what vehicle.

Hey Tegus. I know your interpretation of the rules is absolutely correct. however, how can you track the exact units in any one vehicle?

Grignard wrote

Musical teleporting transport guy, aka the quantum rhino: He has a mechanized infantry army with several identical transports carrying different types of troops. For some reason the best choice for the given situation comes out of that vehicle. You can't find the exact position of those fire dragons, but there is a high probability of them being in or around the transport heading toward your armor.

I can see this being a problem. Do you just avoid people like this? Or after the game, there should be a clear reference to which squad was in each vehicle? I am aware that your opponent does NOT have to reveal his list before the game, but after?

What's your call?

i will tell someone at the start of the game which has what in it, and and it will be marked on my army list, but after that it is your responsibility to know whats in each tank. if its a friendly game, ill usually say if a buddy asks me, but that brings me to my next point...

the "I dont knower":
has no idea how your army works, and every turn has to ask about 101 questions you answered last turn. ultimatly ends in me grabbing an extra codex and leaving it on his side.

the "last phase specialist"
always forgets to do something in the last pase, i.e. move in the assualt phase, or in the movement phase for that matter. or forgets to take morale checks, or fall back\re-group checks. this only happens in friendly games to me, but gets very annoying.

the "dice snatcher"
i almost dont have to describe this one. doenst say if hes rolling for the hit or just messing around, grabs dice too quick for even him to see sometimes but if they all hit, he totally said he was rolling for it! really bad in conjunction with the forgetter

the "forgetter"
forgets what BS\WS\S\T for troops are, temporarily. common phrases like "oh yea my scouts only have a 4+save" and "did i have a 3 in those 4 hits? i thought it was a 4..."

the "movement specialist"
changes his movement basis from edge of the model base to the middle of the base mid-movement, giving him the precious 1/2 in. to bring him in range.


on this topic, how would you guys feel about these situations;

A) the person I'm playing has a fast vehicle. in the movement phase he extends his measuring tape out 24" to see his movement, but only ends up moving 12". by doing that its giving him an idea of what his 12" weapon can be in range of if he only moves 12".

B) squad 1 moves within 5-7 inches of my squad. now squad 1 has rapid fire weapons, so if they shoot they cannot assualt, but their 12" weapons would very easily let them know if they are in range to assualt. he measures to see if he is in range, which he is very obviously in 12" but ends up being out of assualt range. so he fires instead.



i dont know how i feel about this. i feel its almost cheating, i mean this is seems like a loop-hole that can be exploited very eaisly, especially with, say eldar tanks who can move up to 36" with star engines.

Are you allowed to measure maximum range or measure to target?

well thats my question, is this something no one really has a problem with? one time i played against a certain person who was pretty obvious about what he was doing, seeing if he was in range to assualt.

akira5665:

Hey Tegus. I know your interpretation of the rules is absolutely correct. however, how can you track the exact units in any one vehicle?

Didn't we cover this earlier in the thread? Bits of paper reading "Fire Dragon squad 1" or whatever stuck on the bottom of the transport, or placed inside it. When the time comes to disembark, I show my opponent what was written, to prove I'm not playing a shell game.

OK, fair enough. But as the rule is not in the book about markers on transports, I was looking for additional insight is all.

tegeus-Cromis wrote:The rules don't entitle you to know which unit is in which vehicle. If your opponent is agreeable, fair enough, but I would never accept such a condition, and my answer to your question would always be "Mind your own business" until such a time as that unit should have to/want to disembark.

Since most tournaments require you to hand over your army list to your opponent, and I really do get to see what unit you are deploying as you deploy...

The above is 100% jackassery (not you just the entire concept). The rules DO entitle me to know, as else YOU can cheat your arse off.

"Oh, that CC unit you thought you pinned in place? Well, actually, I SAY I put it over here in this transport painted the same horse brown as all the rest. Woo I'm going to win cause I'm a cheat!"

Yeah. 100% balony in a tournament, and if this happened in a friendly game--how would you get another game with said 'friend'? Promise not to pull a stunt like that again?

I've still not played someone at my FLGS for pulling a similar stunt, and that was 2 years ago!

MagickalMemories wrote:

Stelek wrote:Wily females. Sorry sister, I'm married and irregardless of how many tattoos/piercings/goth/cleavage you show me, I'm NOT interested and I AM going to crush your army, even with your 400 pound gorilla of a husband/slack jawed freak/fool staring at me the entire game. I fear not you nor your baggage.

All attemps at social engineering are in my honest opinion, nothing more than trying to cheat and it's never worked once.

Stelek, I smiled and/or laughed through that whole freaking post.
You made some good points there.

You know... you are one gruff cuss... but d@mned if I don't like you, regardless.

I do have an actual question...

Re: "All attempts at social engineering..."

Are you saying that applies if your opponent is a stranger and tries to be sociable, friendly, etc? Or are you referring to a specific STYLE of social engineering?

Take care, man!

Eric

Yeah, I am a gruff cuss. I'm all panda bear inside.

To answer your question:

I am a good judge of character. Granted, I'm not G-d and cannot be perfect in my judgements.

I'll give you an example from my point of view. This might be long, might turn into a rant...and, I apologize.

I went to the LV GT this year.

Of my 5 opponents, 5 lost.

One guy, I was very pleased with his army (since that is a big deal to me, playing nice armies) and we talked/joked/shot the sh** about our armies for about 20 minutes while we were getting setup....and I told him the scenario was stupid, offered to swap attacker/defender, let him go first, etc but he said no and we had at it. His army was beaten, but in the end he gave me 8 sportsmanship points. I was, like I am with all of my opponents, not rude nor overly friendly--but he was, and he cracked my shell. Much to my delight, he wasn't trying to social engineer me he was just a really nice guy with a really nice army.

He was the lone standout.

2 other guys brought horde IG and were unhappy they got their arse handed to them. The first guy tried to hide it, but didn't do a good job of it but he was an adult and he at least sucked it up. The second guy had a primed army, and was a class A jerk of a 16 year old. Got very surly with every clump of guys he had to take off and toss into his bin.
The other 2 guys I played, one was pretend nice while I smushed his army--but gave me a 0 on sportsmanship, he smiled all the while. The last guy was all about winning, but his army was no match for mine--once he lost, he no longer seemed to give a damn about MY fun factor and insisted on challenging me on almost everything I did, then gave me a 2 for sportsmanship and wrote "prickless wonder" on my scoring sheet.

So, there's the negative side (4 jerks) and the positive side (1 class act).

4 people came to win, and I tossed them out the door. 2 couldn't keep themselves under control, but at no point did THEIR annoyance affect MY game. The guy who smiled and laughed as I blew his army up, didn't fool me one bit--if I was a jerk like he was, I'd have given him a 0 on his sportsmanship too. The kid who pouted and whined, he didn't get knocked on sportsmanship though I really did want to smack him upside the head for telling me at the start of the game how sorry he was that I had such a nicely painted noob army he was going to crush. More social engineering, very specific, and totally lost on me.

The guys my friend and I played in the Friday matches?

Well, the first guys we played were real fun. There to have fun just like we were.

The second set of guys were kids, and got all pissy when we obliterated their Harlies. (Yeah, Harlies suck.)

The last set of guys we played, well, they obviously wanted it with the army they brought. See, we were silly and just played smaller versions of our GT armies. They didn't, they were class A jerks all around, and I was (I'm sad to say, since it reflects poorly on me) quite happy to see them moving down the tables as the GT progressed (their own armies were, well, crap) and I could tell from their body language how unhappy they were they were going away from the top tables.

Is pouting, whining, and bee-atching like schoolgirls a form of social engineering? Hard to say, but I figured I'd toss the whole kit and caboodle of my LV experience into the mix.

For more 'specific' social engineering...things like, knowing GW staffers (yeah, I knew quite a few of them but during my games I never asked them to help me but for once when the person I knew who is NOT a friend just a likeable guy that puts up with my B.S. lol well the other guy asked him for help and he had to ask the head brit for help), talking up your opponents, things of that nature--essentially they are all cons of one sort or another.

There's rules against it in "real" tournaments/events. GT's aren't of that calibre, so alot of hijinks goes on. What can I do? GW doesn't pay enough, and they don't take real volunteers anymore. lol

Stelek:

Since most tournaments require you to hand over your army list to your opponent, and I really do get to see what unit you are deploying as you deploy...

So which part of this entitles you to know which unit is in which transport? I'm talking about non-dedicated vehicles here.

The above is 100% jackassery (not you just the entire concept). The rules DO entitle me to know, as else YOU can cheat your arse off.

"Oh, that CC unit you thought you pinned in place? Well, actually, I SAY I put it over here in this transport painted the same horse brown as all the rest. Woo I'm going to win cause I'm a cheat!"

Did you totally miss my last three posts or so? I've explained how this sort of cheating can be eliminated.

akira5665 wrote:Hey Tegus. I know your interpretation of the rules is absolutely correct. however, how can you track the exact units in any one vehicle?

Grignard wrote

Musical teleporting transport guy, aka the quantum rhino: He has a mechanized infantry army with several identical transports carrying different types of troops. For some reason the best choice for the given situation comes out of that vehicle. You can't find the exact position of those fire dragons, but there is a high probability of them being in or around the transport heading toward your armor.

I can see this being a problem. Do you just avoid people like this? Or after the game, there should be a clear reference to which squad was in each vehicle? I am aware that your opponent does NOT have to reveal his list before the game, but after?

What's your call?

This one is hard I think, because things like this inherently rely on the player who has to follow the rule keeping up with it. So many times it really is unintentional. Ive switched around transports unintentionally before, which is one reason I'm cognizant of the concept, and not naive enough to think that it isnt being done intentionally by some people. This is a lead by example sort of situation, I think. I take the initiative now in creating some sort of agreement or system so that it is clear what vehicle is carrying what on my army sheet. I also make clear up BEFORE the game what counts as area terrain, cover save numbers, difficult terrain conventions, line of sight conventions ( magic cylinder or model's eye view), and the like. I do this even if I'm not asked, actually, especially if I'm not asked. Ive gotten plenty of odd glances and bemused looks when playing unfamiliar opponents, but I've found this sort of thing tends to head arguments off at the pass, which makes for fun games.

well we all have seen this tactic before and they don't have to tell you which trans has the HQ etc.. it all is how honest your opponent is i well say a couple times i was temped to do this but sportsmen ship got the best of me. because if you cheat how much better are you ?

the best answer is if they blow up your trans. SUCK IT UP !!

Ye gods, you people are amazing at ignoring blindingly simple solutions. I say again: you don't have to trust to your opponent's honesty. When it comes to transports the contents of which your opponent doesn't have to reveal (i.e. non-dedicated ones), just get him to indicate the squad on a scrap of paper and place it in or under the transport in question. When it blows up or the squad wants to disembark, inspect the scrap of paper. Barring magicianly sleight of hand, this removes the possibility of shell games entirely while maintaining the secrecy that the rulebook allows.

i see what you are saying now, man were a couple boneheads here

tegeus-Cromis wrote:Stelek:

Since most tournaments require you to hand over your army list to your opponent, and I really do get to see what unit you are deploying as you deploy...

So which part of this entitles you to know which unit is in which transport? I'm talking about non-dedicated vehicles here.

You say 'I am deploying my terminators now. They are going into this land raider.'

So, I know when and where you deployed them.

You stated I can't know, and I should 'mind my own business'?

I'd laugh in your face if you tried to pull this.

tegeus-Cromis wrote:Stelek:

The above is 100% jackassery (not you just the entire concept). The rules DO entitle me to know, as else YOU can cheat your arse off.

"Oh, that CC unit you thought you pinned in place? Well, actually, I SAY I put it over here in this transport painted the same horse brown as all the rest. Woo I'm going to win cause I'm a cheat!"

Did you totally miss my last three posts or so? I've explained how this sort of cheating can be eliminated.

Since it isn't allowed, I don't see why we need an explanation on how to eliminate it.

tegeus-Cromis wrote:When it comes to transports the contents of which your opponent doesn't have to reveal (i.e. non-dedicated ones), just get him to indicate the squad on a scrap of paper and place it in or under the transport in question. When it blows up or the squad wants to disembark, inspect the scrap of paper. Barring magicianly sleight of hand, this removes the possibility of shell games entirely while maintaining the secrecy that the rulebook allows.

This is not allowed. You MUST tell your opponent what is deploying, and into what. If you really think you can say 'this unit is deployed, and which of my land raiders it's in is my secret' well....

100%.