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.

Lemondish wrote:

 Eihnlazer wrote:
Yes, if this isn't a tourney game, then theres really no issue, since player B failed to mention what could happen beforehand.

You cant expect casual games to be on point all the time.


I would, as player A, expect my opponent to mention things like forwarned or - to hit strats he can play, when I express my intent to do things in a casual setting.



If however, you are playing in a tournament, then as player B you are not expected to mention all your rules to your opponent.

Its up to him to ask you about things you can do before he declares intent in a tourney setting.

Sorry, but even in friendly matches in a casual setting, I'm not telling you my plan.

Feel free to ask questions, but they have to be specific. "Do you have anything that can further modify my chance to hit your units? Do you have anything that can intercept deep strike or deep strike analogs?" I don't really accept "What are you going to do if I make this move?"

I'm here to play a game where one player controls one army, not here to walk you through winning with yours.

This. Asking "What strats/rules do you have which can affect deepstrike?" is not complicated.

Lemondish wrote:

 Eihnlazer wrote:
Yes, if this isn't a tourney game, then theres really no issue, since player B failed to mention what could happen beforehand.

You cant expect casual games to be on point all the time.


I would, as player A, expect my opponent to mention things like forwarned or - to hit strats he can play, when I express my intent to do things in a casual setting.



If however, you are playing in a tournament, then as player B you are not expected to mention all your rules to your opponent.

Its up to him to ask you about things you can do before he declares intent in a tourney setting.

Sorry, but even in friendly matches in a casual setting, I'm not telling you my plan.

Feel free to ask questions, but they have to be specific. "Do you have anything that can further modify my chance to hit your units? Do you have anything that can intercept deep strike or deep strike analogs?" I don't really accept "What are you going to do if I make this move?"

I'm here to play a game where one player controls one army, not here to walk you through winning with yours.

I’d agree with this. My opponent got a bit butthurt the other day because he asked if my Vindicare could see his model after he’d moved it. It couldn’t. In my turn I moved and shot him anyway. Another time he asked if a model could see a certain other model. It couldn’t. Half the rest of my army could as a result and lit him up. There’s only so much help I can give... weird thing is he’ll gleeflully play Lightning Fast Reactions or Forewarned like there’s no tomorrow!

Half the game is capitalising on your opponent’s mistakes.

Weirdly enough, I find the Chess clock helps with these situations.

You wait until he has placed, you then flip it to your time, and do your action/stratagem/whatever.

If they try to move anything, tell them, its on your time and please don't change the game state. If there is a rules issue, call a judge.

 Tyranid Horde wrote:
You've misunderstood what I meant by secret information. Everyone has access to an army list and the stratagems available to that army (or decklist) but where in MtG you may not know what is in your opponent's hand, you won't know what stratagems an opponent may use until they use them. Yes you can make educated guesses or straight up know a combo but it's still information your opponent will not tell you until the situation arises. That's the whole point of counter-play. If you knew exactly what was going to happen you won't make that play because it would negatively impact you. Hence my statement that if you take back an action and your opponent has reacted to it then you know one of their lines of play.

Also your opponent doesn't have to tell you what might happen, you should be rehearsed in a standard army list for whatever faction you're playing so you don't play into someone's advantage.

We may have gotten our wires crossed, I'll try to put my point across more clearly. I'm suggesting that players ask their opponents about their army's rules (which could include CP costs you mentioned in your previous post) to help make informed decisions and avoid the situations discussed in this thread of players requesting "take-backs" because they were caught off guard. Unlike the cards in your hand during a MtG game, what stratagems you have available to you isn't hidden information. Asking about your opponent's stratagems is not the same as asking for your opponent's strategy. There shouldn't be a problem asking your opponent about any of their army's rules and your opponent certainly doesn't have to volunteer information you didn't ask for.

It would be unreasonable to expect anyone to know every single rule, stratagem, trait, warlord trait, special ability. etc., for all of 40k's 27(ish) armies and however many subfactions and specialist/formation detachments those armies have. If someone asked you if your army had a stratagem that gave a unit a cover bonus, or if a unit had ability that let it heroically intervene, would you refuse to tell them?

pm713 wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

General Hobbs wrote:


I saw this in a game the other day: Player A: I shoot at those Rangers with my lootas.

Player B: I will use Pathfinders strat on them, you only hit on 6's.

Player A: Oh, I'm not going to shoot at them, I'll shoot at the guardians instead.

Player B: ok.

Later in the game

Player A: I am going to Da Jump here.

Player B: OK ( waits) now I will use Forewarned on them

Player A: Oh, I'm not done placing them ( moves unit out of los)

At what point does a player get committed to an action and not be able to do a take back based on the other players action?

I was actually waiting for the Ork player to say, you didn't tell me you could Forewarn something and shoot at it! But he didn't.

( I actually had a guy start whining about how old Caller of the Slain was not fair because his army's whole strategy was based on infiltration.....)

Actually, in a friendly game, this is fine. There are tons of stratagems out there, and remembering them all is a daunting task. If there is a gentlemen agreement to play by intent, I'd just inform walking into a stratagem he might not know about before he does anything.

In a competitive setting, I'd say no to both. Declaring to shoot something is final, and you can't just test whether your opponent would pull the stratagem or not and then go back on what you did in case you do not get the desired result.
Same for the anti-deepstrike stratagems. Once he stops moving models about, you should confirm whether the player is done, and then activate the stratagem. No moving models afterwards.

Then there is the issue of playing pick-up games with people you do not know. Player B might just have wanted to not have any game store drama and thus just let it slip because nothing was on the line.

In a friendly game that is not fine. You can't just change your mind about what you're doing because it's not going to work as well as you thought.

It’s a friendly game. As long as both people agree they can do whatever they want. I’m not gonna hose a new player because they didn’t know every stratagem in my codex.

tneva82 wrote:

 AndrewGPaul wrote:
To be honest, I would expect any action I take during a game to have a potential counter, be it a stratagem or a unit ability. If I were playing someone inexperienced, I might mention at the beginning of the game "by the way, I have access to these stratagems, that could interrupt your actions in these circumstances", but expecting a take-back just because I've countered you isn't on IMO. You need to plan for unforeseen upsets like that; it's no different to taking the shot and simply missing, after all, and that happens to me all the time.

Then again...do you want 30minute pre-game session every time to go over all the potential combos opponents army can have?

Me? No, it's more fun to discover them during the game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Karol wrote:
People do everything they can get away with to win. Some can do more, some can do less, In some classes no one cares if some stretchs the rules are bend a bit.

Is this a Polish thing, a wrestling thing or is it just your local group?

 nurgle5 wrote:

 Tyranid Horde wrote:
You've misunderstood what I meant by secret information. Everyone has access to an army list and the stratagems available to that army (or decklist) but where in MtG you may not know what is in your opponent's hand, you won't know what stratagems an opponent may use until they use them. Yes you can make educated guesses or straight up know a combo but it's still information your opponent will not tell you until the situation arises. That's the whole point of counter-play. If you knew exactly what was going to happen you won't make that play because it would negatively impact you. Hence my statement that if you take back an action and your opponent has reacted to it then you know one of their lines of play.

Also your opponent doesn't have to tell you what might happen, you should be rehearsed in a standard army list for whatever faction you're playing so you don't play into someone's advantage.

We may have gotten our wires crossed, I'll try to put my point across more clearly. I'm suggesting that players ask their opponents about their army's rules (which could include CP costs you mentioned in your previous post) to help make informed decisions and avoid the situations discussed in this thread of players requesting "take-backs" because they were caught off guard. Unlike the cards in your hand during a MtG game, what stratagems you have available to you isn't hidden information. Asking about your opponent's stratagems is not the same as asking for your opponent's strategy. There shouldn't be a problem asking your opponent about any of their army's rules and your opponent certainly doesn't have to volunteer information you didn't ask for.

It would be unreasonable to expect anyone to know every single rule, stratagem, trait, warlord trait, special ability. etc., for all of 40k's 27(ish) armies and however many subfactions and specialist/formation detachments those armies have. If someone asked you if your army had a stratagem that gave a unit a cover bonus, or if a unit had ability that let it heroically intervene, would you refuse to tell them?

If someone asks me about a specific rule or stratagem before the game then sure, but I'm not actively going out of my way to help an opponent by saying I have a certain stratagem I can use. Stratagems you plan on using are still secret and revealing those to your opponent is giving them information they don't need. When playing the game those are risks you take and if anyone plans on playing competitively people should learn standard lists with their associated stratagems and combos. It might sound like a dick move, but you're playing to win, not to help your opponent make a potentially game changing decision.

I think the answer to how much information you should be giving to your opponent and how strict you should be with take-backs depends on the setting and experience level of your opponent.

In general this is how I handle my opponents.

Friendly game vs a inexperienced player: I will try to explain my moves while I’m making them. I’ll go out of my way to tell them “hey if you do X, I’ll probably do Y” and then explain why. If they make a mistake I’ll let them take it back unless they continue to repeat the same mistake. Generally though when dice hit the table it’s too late for a take-back


Friendly game vs a regular player: I’ll give them a general overview of how my army works. I’ll explain any combos or complicated rules interactions I have planned. Depending on the situation I’ll allow a take-back for a few simple mistakes but repeated mistakes or obvious screwups I’ll hold someone to. Once you have a firm grasp on the rules, sometimes the best way to learn is from a mistake.


Competitive game: I hand my opponent my army list, answer any general questions (ex do you have anything that can deepstrike, can you make a turn 1 charge, etc.) truthfully, and other than that I keep quiet.

 Tyranid Horde wrote:

If someone asks me about a specific rule or stratagem before the game then sure, but I'm not actively going out of my way to help an opponent by saying I have a certain stratagem I can use. Stratagems you plan on using are still secret and revealing those to your opponent is giving them information they don't need. When playing the game those are risks you take and if anyone plans on playing competitively people should learn standard lists with their associated stratagems and combos. It might sound like a dick move, but you're playing to win, not to help your opponent make a potentially game changing decision.

So just to help me understand what you're saying a bit better, I'm going to put a situation to you and ask how you'd respond, but feel free to use a different example if it carries your point across better -- say you were playing as Imperial Guard and your opponent asked during their shooting phase if you had any stratagems that granted a cover save, are you saying that you:

(a) would not tell them about Take Cover! because they didn't ask before the game started

or

(b) would not tell them about Take Cover! because you plan on using that stratagem

or

(c) would tell them about Take Cover!, but not say how (or if) you were planning on using that stratagem

?

I would probably pick A in a competitive setting as they should know about it/should have asked at the start but C in a friendly setting. Make the action and I'll respond with the stratagem, not before.

EDIT: So having a think about this, it would be fine to tell an opponent about a stratagem but if they're already in the motions of choosing targets etc. I would not interfere and declare a use of the stratagem after they're done. So I guess the answer is C as it is open information.

 nurgle5 wrote:

 Tyranid Horde wrote:

If someone asks me about a specific rule or stratagem before the game then sure, but I'm not actively going out of my way to help an opponent by saying I have a certain stratagem I can use. Stratagems you plan on using are still secret and revealing those to your opponent is giving them information they don't need. When playing the game those are risks you take and if anyone plans on playing competitively people should learn standard lists with their associated stratagems and combos. It might sound like a dick move, but you're playing to win, not to help your opponent make a potentially game changing decision.

So just to help me understand what you're saying a bit better, I'm going to put a situation to you and ask how you'd respond, but feel free to use a different example if it carries your point across better -- say you were playing as Imperial Guard and your opponent asked during their shooting phase if you had any stratagems that granted a cover save, are you saying that you:

(a) would not tell them about Take Cover! because they didn't ask before the game started

or

(b) would not tell them about Take Cover! because you plan on using that stratagem

or

(c) would tell them about Take Cover!, but not say how (or if) you were planning on using that stratagem

?

it's an open information game. if your opponent asks about a rule or ability in your codex you need to provide them with the information. refusing to do so is cheating is it not?

You are allowed and encouraged to ask clarifying questions prior to performing an action.

In addition, if you are doing something with intent (I'm deep striking this squad just outside of 12 inches) and then finish moving guys into position is also good for clarity purposes as you're performing an action.

Player A (intentionally or unintentionally but from what info we are given it leans to intentionally) broke the rules in both scenarios. That's all there is to it. As to how people feel about breaking the rules, I'll leave them with their own opinions, but my opinion is that you shouldn't break the rules.

 Tyranid Horde wrote:
I would probably pick A in a competitive setting as they should know about it/should have asked at the start but C in a friendly setting. Make the action and I'll respond with the stratagem, not before.

Even in a tournament that is cheating and C is the only acceptable answer. You must answer rule questions correctly, you don't get to hide your rules. The existence of the stratagem is public information even if when/if you plan to use it is private.

 AndrewGPaul wrote:

Player A: I shoot at those Rangers with my lootas.

Player B: I will use Pathfinders strat on them, you only hit on 6's.

Player A: Oh, I'm not going to shoot at them, I'll shoot at the guardians instead.

Player A has clearly stated his intent and only later changed his mind.

Variation for consideration...

Player A: I shoot at those Rangers with my Devastator squad here.

Player B: I will use Pathfinder strat on them, you only hit on 6’s.

Player A: Okay, only my sarge will be shooting that squad, with his pistol. The rest of the squad will use split fire on your Falcon over there.

What sort of a person gets in a huff because they lost to something they hadn't studied up on or learned about previously? I've had this exact thing happen to me many times, I think teleporting Harlie's jump to mind, and I'm like "woah - that's cool, Ill keep in mind that they can do this!"

If you don't know what the top armies can do competitively then it's on you to learn, that's part of playing to the meta and being a strong, knowledgeable player. You cannot rely on your opponent per warning you about something good they have, or act as though they are the problem when you do.

And if you are playing against a lesser seen army, well, that's part of their strength, they may have tech you don't see coming and in my experience, boy they often need it.

I'll never change my opinion on this one, people expect their hand held way too much, oh no you lost a game to something new, well congrats the world didn't end because you lost the game, your opponent isnt a Yugioh villain, and now you know and have all the ammo you need to not let that happen again and maybe tear that army up next time now that you know what to plan for. Even Games Workshop recommends baiting your opponent with strats etc that they mightnt know about in their "strategy" articles all the time and they are the kings of casual, I guess they figured the average player is not immature enough to have a tantrum about it.

 Stormonu wrote:

 AndrewGPaul wrote:

Player A: I shoot at those Rangers with my lootas.

Player B: I will use Pathfinders strat on them, you only hit on 6's.

Player A: Oh, I'm not going to shoot at them, I'll shoot at the guardians instead.

Player A has clearly stated his intent and only later changed his mind.

Variation for consideration...

Player A: I shoot at those Rangers with my Devastator squad here.

Player B: I will use Pathfinder strat on them, you only hit on 6’s.

Player A: Okay, only my sarge will be shooting that squad, with his pistol. The rest of the squad will use split fire on your Falcon over there.

Nope. All shooting targets are declared simultaneously. A didn't declare any other targets, A is committed to that choice.

I would generally say that technically, the use of the strategem locks the action.

However, it's kind of an ass thing to stick to that outside of competitive play, notably if he didn't know the stratagem was a thing [that's just kind of "gotcha!" based on something they couldn't have known was even an option], so I'd probably let him switch his targets and not expend the CP.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
I would generally say that technically, the use of the strategem locks the action.

However, it's kind of an ass thing to stick to that outside of competitive play, notably if he didn't know the stratagem was a thing [that's just kind of "gotcha!" based on something they couldn't have known was even an option], so I'd probably let him switch his targets and not expend the CP.

I have just got into the habit of telling players that the best way to learn is to make mistakes, so much in these games can catch players off guard.
And games do need to stick to a reasonable time limit in a lot of cases, without a player asking a specific question it’s just to hard to go though anything that may catch a player off guard.
New players get concessions, but after playing for a few months it’s just a detriment to others enjoyment to hold there hands to much :(

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
I would generally say that technically, the use of the strategem locks the action.

However, it's kind of an ass thing to stick to that outside of competitive play, notably if he didn't know the stratagem was a thing [that's just kind of "gotcha!" based on something they couldn't have known was even an option], so I'd probably let him switch his targets and not expend the CP.

But why isn't it kind of an ass thing to insist that your opponent take back their successful move just because you don't want to lose? Why isn't the player who walked into the trap obligated to take responsibility for not knowing that the stratagem exists? Now the player who made the mistake is in an even better position than they were before they declared the target as a direct reward for making a significant mistake. And the player who did everything right has to effectively treat one of their strongest tools as having a rule that it can only be used with the other player's consent.

Given a couple of the responses for even friendly games I have seen, I would hate to see what happen when those posters dial up to competitive play.

I only try to play friendly games. Often it is with people that aren't even wargamers. So I have no problem allowing take backs. Sure, there is a theoretical limit to the number and such, but I haven't had an opponent do so many that much to say, sorry no can do this time.

Honestly, I don't like capitalizing on simple gotchas like the OP described. I can understand it being annoying, mostly in this is dragging out the game sort of way. If (big if since I don't game as much any more and not nearly as serious) I am going to do something like a gotcha tactic, it isn't something single action can undo. I am going to put my opponent between a rock and hard place where any choice they perform including no choice is going to get them out. Much more satisfying than. "Ha. Ha. I know more rules trivia that you!"

[ bit of a tangent ]
Even now, I try not to do that sort thing much either. One of my least fun games was against a opponent I regularly played. In general, he was a better player than me so I brought A game with a list I didn't think would work but had a strong strategy behind it. Well the strategy worked like clockwork. I had completely shut down my opponent's army. Which was fun, until I realized that I had completely demoralized my opponent. He literally felt that any thing his army did was futile as mine would completely shut it down. I never saw him so despondent. I decided never to play game like that again. [ tangent over ]

I don't really care that much if I win or lose, I just want a close game. Typically, if my opponent isn't making take backies when they are absolutely wrecking me (pretty common), and like I said, they aren't going to do much against me if I happen to be winning. Take backs usually only happen when my opponent believes they are still able to achieve victory but it is far from secured. Which is exactly where I want the game to be until the last few dice rolls.

BrianDavion wrote:
when player B said he was using strart it was IMHO too late for takebacksies.

Seconded.

If hes reaching for his dice, or waiting for a response, then no take backs. It all depends on context. Tournament game, no takebacks; Casual game; yes; Experienced player, no; Noob player, yes. Unless you pounce on him straight away (getting too eager) then once you declare your Strat use it's too late.

In My Honest Opinion.

Lemondish wrote:

I don't really accept "What are you going to do if I make this move?"

I'd accept that as a question. Just don't expect a useful answer back.

"What are you going to do if I make this move?"

"Rules appropriate actions"

Lot of people here equating Player A with That Guy, and while I don't disagree, I just want to take a moment to tip my hat to Player B. Guy sounds like a really patient, all round swell guy. Would be thrilled to have him in my local group.

Kind of surprised by some of the responses regarding friendly games, but I guess that's because even in friendly games theirs a wide margin. The guy who I tag along with to attend tournaments at our FLGS probably isn't going to get take backs, he doesn't need them nor expect to be 'assisted' in a game. The one who just assembled his first 500pt force of marines or hasn't played 8th yet will probably enjoy the game a lot more if he isn't obliterated due to not being familiar with Eldar rules or the fact that Tau drones can soak wounds etc.

Pretty much agree with this,

Tygre wrote:
If hes reaching for his dice, or waiting for a response, then no take backs. It all depends on context. Tournament game, no takebacks; Casual game; yes; Experienced player, no; Noob player, yes. Unless you pounce on him straight away (getting too eager) then once you declare your Strat use it's too late.

In My Honest Opinion.

pm713 wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

General Hobbs wrote:


I saw this in a game the other day: Player A: I shoot at those Rangers with my lootas.

Player B: I will use Pathfinders strat on them, you only hit on 6's.

Player A: Oh, I'm not going to shoot at them, I'll shoot at the guardians instead.

Player B: ok.

Later in the game

Player A: I am going to Da Jump here.

Player B: OK ( waits) now I will use Forewarned on them

Player A: Oh, I'm not done placing them ( moves unit out of los)

At what point does a player get committed to an action and not be able to do a take back based on the other players action?

I was actually waiting for the Ork player to say, you didn't tell me you could Forewarn something and shoot at it! But he didn't.

( I actually had a guy start whining about how old Caller of the Slain was not fair because his army's whole strategy was based on infiltration.....)

Actually, in a friendly game, this is fine. There are tons of stratagems out there, and remembering them all is a daunting task. If there is a gentlemen agreement to play by intent, I'd just inform walking into a stratagem he might not know about before he does anything.

In a competitive setting, I'd say no to both. Declaring to shoot something is final, and you can't just test whether your opponent would pull the stratagem or not and then go back on what you did in case you do not get the desired result.
Same for the anti-deepstrike stratagems. Once he stops moving models about, you should confirm whether the player is done, and then activate the stratagem. No moving models afterwards.

Then there is the issue of playing pick-up games with people you do not know. Player B might just have wanted to not have any game store drama and thus just let it slip because nothing was on the line.

In a friendly game that is not fine. You can't just change your mind about what you're doing because it's not going to work as well as you thought.

Friendly is the key here. Two players are involved, and player A is not entitled to get take-backs. Player B is friendly because he is allowing those take-backs if he hadn't, player A would have to suck it up.

In a friendly game it's fine to ask for a take-back and it's fine for the other player to allow or decline the request.

 Guardsmanwaffle wrote:

pm713 wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

General Hobbs wrote:


I saw this in a game the other day: Player A: I shoot at those Rangers with my lootas.

Player B: I will use Pathfinders strat on them, you only hit on 6's.

Player A: Oh, I'm not going to shoot at them, I'll shoot at the guardians instead.

Player B: ok.

Later in the game

Player A: I am going to Da Jump here.

Player B: OK ( waits) now I will use Forewarned on them

Player A: Oh, I'm not done placing them ( moves unit out of los)

At what point does a player get committed to an action and not be able to do a take back based on the other players action?

I was actually waiting for the Ork player to say, you didn't tell me you could Forewarn something and shoot at it! But he didn't.

( I actually had a guy start whining about how old Caller of the Slain was not fair because his army's whole strategy was based on infiltration.....)

Actually, in a friendly game, this is fine. There are tons of stratagems out there, and remembering them all is a daunting task. If there is a gentlemen agreement to play by intent, I'd just inform walking into a stratagem he might not know about before he does anything.

In a competitive setting, I'd say no to both. Declaring to shoot something is final, and you can't just test whether your opponent would pull the stratagem or not and then go back on what you did in case you do not get the desired result.
Same for the anti-deepstrike stratagems. Once he stops moving models about, you should confirm whether the player is done, and then activate the stratagem. No moving models afterwards.

Then there is the issue of playing pick-up games with people you do not know. Player B might just have wanted to not have any game store drama and thus just let it slip because nothing was on the line.

In a friendly game that is not fine. You can't just change your mind about what you're doing because it's not going to work as well as you thought.

It’s a friendly game. As long as both people agree they can do whatever they want. I’m not gonna hose a new player because they didn’t know every stratagem in my codex.

It's nothing to do with not knowing stratagems. It's changing what you're doing because something bad happen. You wouldn't let someone change target because they missed their shots so why would you because you have a stratagem?

 Jidmah wrote:

pm713 wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

General Hobbs wrote:


I saw this in a game the other day: Player A: I shoot at those Rangers with my lootas.

Player B: I will use Pathfinders strat on them, you only hit on 6's.

Player A: Oh, I'm not going to shoot at them, I'll shoot at the guardians instead.

Player B: ok.

Later in the game

Player A: I am going to Da Jump here.

Player B: OK ( waits) now I will use Forewarned on them

Player A: Oh, I'm not done placing them ( moves unit out of los)

At what point does a player get committed to an action and not be able to do a take back based on the other players action?

I was actually waiting for the Ork player to say, you didn't tell me you could Forewarn something and shoot at it! But he didn't.

( I actually had a guy start whining about how old Caller of the Slain was not fair because his army's whole strategy was based on infiltration.....)

Actually, in a friendly game, this is fine. There are tons of stratagems out there, and remembering them all is a daunting task. If there is a gentlemen agreement to play by intent, I'd just inform walking into a stratagem he might not know about before he does anything.

In a competitive setting, I'd say no to both. Declaring to shoot something is final, and you can't just test whether your opponent would pull the stratagem or not and then go back on what you did in case you do not get the desired result.
Same for the anti-deepstrike stratagems. Once he stops moving models about, you should confirm whether the player is done, and then activate the stratagem. No moving models afterwards.

Then there is the issue of playing pick-up games with people you do not know. Player B might just have wanted to not have any game store drama and thus just let it slip because nothing was on the line.

In a friendly game that is not fine. You can't just change your mind about what you're doing because it's not going to work as well as you thought.

Friendly is the key here. Two players are involved, and player A is not entitled to get take-backs. Player B is friendly because he is allowing those take-backs if he hadn't, player A would have to suck it up.

In a friendly game it's fine to ask for a take-back and it's fine for the other player to allow or decline the request.

The thing is, Its not very friendly, Its reaching into TFG jar. And unless they are a very new player, I would see it as pushing towards a very toxic way of playing the game. Fishing for responses and then changing to other choices.
Mistakes themselves ad to the game in interesting ways, and there is a lot of good reasons not to allow players to do things like this, as well as to the satisifaction of there opponents. unless this player has been playing for more than a month, or the group is very lose with it. I would be stopping this kind of behavior just so it does not lead to more issues.

To be honest, I tend to assume that any action I take will have a counter available to my opponent; in the case of the OP, I'd try to declare my shooting attacks from least important to most, in the hope of drawing out any counter-Stratagems too early. If it came to being asked before the game what stratagems my army has available, I'd hand over the appropriate* cards and let them read them

* i.e. no point handing over faction- or keyword-specific cards that don't apply. If I'm playing Catachans, no point showing my opponent the Cadian stratagems. Likewise, no point showing the Sentinel-specific stratagem if I've not got any Sentinels. Cuts down on information overload and reading time.