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.

If you can't explain the fundamentals and important tricks of your army in 3 minutes or less, that's a you problem, and you should probably practice more until you can. If something critical then comes up later in the game that you should have explained earlier but didn't, just explain it to them at that time, before it has the chance to bite them in the butt.

It's not about "deserving," it's about making sure both parties have a fun game that's determined by who plays the better game, not by knowledge differentials. It's not a coincidence that essentially all the top players in 40k share the same view on this. Real competitors don't like to win because their opponent didn't know about something, that's a flawed victory that leaves a bitter aftertaste. If you can't win without taking advantage of your opponent's lack of knowledge, what that really means is that you're not a very good player.

Other games may have more cutthroat competitive scenes where people will happily exploit their opponent's lack of knowledge, 40k simply doesn't, and people who don't respect that tend to find themselves becoming progressively less welcome as word gets around. One of the notable things about the 40k tournament scene is actually how little disagreement there is about the primacy of sportsmanship and the unacceptability of taking advantage of your opponent, particularly if they are a newer, less experienced player. It probably comes from the lean times when it was hard enough to get 50 people to show up for a tournament in the first place, so everyone made a big effort to make sure newer players in particular felt welcomed and not taken advantage of, but thankfully it has persisted and seems to have become a permanent part of the culture.

Incidentally, how do people feel about Heroic Intervention as a "gotcha" - I frequently run into players who forget that rule, but it's from the core rulebook.

 MinMax wrote:
Incidentally, how do people feel about Heroic Intervention as a "gotcha" - I frequently run into players who forget that rule, but it's from the core rulebook.

I don't think that core game mechanics are "gotcha", but if you have models that bend/break those mechanics then it can be sporting to point them out at least once. So if you have 6" Heroic Intervention then perhaps mention that at the start of the game. If you have a model that is not normally a Character that has been turned into a Character by a Stratagem (Dreadnoughts, Knights etc) then once again it can be gentlemanly to point out the Heroic Intervention implications.

 MinMax wrote:
Incidentally, how do people feel about Heroic Intervention as a "gotcha" - I frequently run into players who forget that rule, but it's from the core rulebook.

I think you can fairly expect people to know the basic rules of the game. If you have special rules that change the calculation, you should let them know just like you'd let them know about any other rules you have that modify the normal rules.

That said, if someone is moving a charging unit within 3" of one of my characters for no apparent reason and it seems like it's just because they forgot the character was there and could intervene, I'd still say "are you intending to be within 3" of my character?" and give them a chance to change their placement if it was just carelessness.

I dunno guys.

I’ve read the comments, but I’m still distinctly iffy on explaining my possible defences to my opponent.

I mean, I see stratagems as secret weapon type stuff. Something I keep up my sleeve specifically to give my opponent a hard time at the right time, whether offensively or defensively.

For my opponent to expect me to explain my plan feels unsporting of him. If his intended target is there, roll the dice and see what happens. If he does so without thinking “maybe this won’t go entirely my way”, I genuinely don’t see that as being my problem?

Nobody expects you to explain your plan, just to explain what special rules your army has. Your plan is how you plan to use your rules; the rule themselves are not your plan.

If you're happy taking a win because your opponent didn't have the money to buy your book to find out what tricks it has, you do you I guess? You may have trouble finding people willing to play a second game, though.

Speaking personally, if I asked someone a question about their army rules and they refused to tell me, I'd pick up my models right there and walk away in a casual game, or go to the TO in a tournament setting and request the player be issued a yellow card for bad sportsmanship.

While I don't necessarily agree to the level of disclosure some on this thread have, sharing information about common tools your army has is sporting behavior. Commonly used stratagems are something I'd share just like this unit has the Bodyguard rule, this unit is a Character, and these funky-looking chainswords on my Repentia are Sx2, AP -3, D2, -1 to Hit on a unit that re-rolls hit rolls.

For me, I draw a line between the objective of the game and the goal of the game. My objective is to win, but my goal is to have fun. I'd rather have fun than win. I don't have fun when my opponent can feel justifiably cheated.

yukishiro1 wrote:
Nobody expects you to explain your plan, just to explain what special rules your army has.

Speaking personally, if I asked someone a question about their army rules and they refused to tell me, I'd pick up my models right there and walk away in a casual game, or go to the TO in a tournament setting and request the player be issued a yellow card for bad sportsmanship.

Well, hold on. Are we supposed to disclose everything to our opponents, or are we explaining things when asked?

Unless I'm specifically playing a teaching game, I give my opponent my army list to look over, and I ask them if they have any questions. That's the end of the conversation, unless they have something they want to discuss. I'll happily tell them all the details of an individual unit, a relic, a warlord trait, etc if asked, but I'm not going to regurgitate every rule in the codex just in case it's their first time playing against the army.

If my opponent asks me "can you buff your Plague Marines' damage in the Fight phase?" I'll reply "yeah I can do Trench Fighters for an extra Attack, and this guy here lets them deal mortal wounds on 6s to wound". If my opponent doesn't ask, and charges in, I don't feel obliged to warn them - in fact, who's to say they aren't already aware?

I make a point of treating my opponents like adults, who don't need their hands held.

You should ask them if they want an overview at the start of the game and give it to them if they say yes, then fully and completely answer any questions they have during the game.

I personally would go beyond that and also check in if I see my opponent doing something that doesn't seem to make any sense and could only be explained by forgetting one of my rules (i.e. coming within 6" of my character that has 6" heroics when they didn't have to and there is no reason to do so) - and from what I can tell, most top tournament players would do the same - but I realize this is probably beyond what you can expect from some people, who may be unable to resist the temptation to take advantage in that situation.

I personally don't ever want to win a game because my opponent forgot or was unaware of something, that doesn't feel like a real victory to me. So by the same token, if someone forgets to, say, do a psychic power before moving on to the shooting phase, I'll happily let them go back and cast it, as long as there hasn't been a change in the board state that gives them information they didn't have before that impacts their decision. My impression is this is also pretty standard among tournament players.

yukishiro1 wrote:


I personally don't ever want to win a game because my opponent forgot or was unaware of something, that doesn't feel like a real victory to me. So by the same token, if someone forgets to, say, do a psychic power before moving on to the shooting phase, I'll happily let them go back and cast it, as long as there hasn't been a change in the board state that gives them information they didn't have before that impacts their decision. My impression is this is also pretty standard among tournament players.

Interesting point, we generally allow take backsies but there are exceptions. If you remembered half way trough your shooting phase that a certain unit was supposed to take an action but didn't, I'm sorry but you just forgot. Is it bad to lose games like that? Yeah I guess but people aren't perfect and sometimes we forget things, if you moved to the psychic phase and said: oops I meant to do an end of movement phase action that's different to me. One is just after you are supposed to do it, the other is halfway trough your turn. At the end of the day I think most people would like games were both play next to perfectly and the better player wins but reality happens especially in more friendly games. People forget or misplay, it happens. Those wins or losses aren't tainted to me.

To be entirely fair to yukishiro, my view may be more limited than the OP intended. That’s entirely on me.

Looking back at the OP, he did mention Special Rules.

Through that specific lens? Yes it is absolutely sporting to be candid and honestly so. For instance, Quantum Shielding. It’s been through at least two iterations, so even long term players who don’t play Necrons might be confused. So it’s absolutely being a good sport, when asked, to explain what the rule does.

Now, me personally? I’d rather get that out the way at the start of the game. And my opponent better have their Codex and a copy to the FAQ they intend to rely on.

That is quite different to my opponent trying to pre-empt my stratagem usage.

Though I still maintain its unsporting for my opponent to expect me to answer hypotheticals. If you want to target, say, my Annihilation Ark, and I’ve explained Quantum Shielding, and mentioned stratagems exist which can benefit the unit? That’s enough. Because if I spell everything out, where’s the strategy for me?

I don’t mind for one second giving them a tactical overview. But strategic insight is too much.

That's the question of whether the board state has changed. You can't go back if the board state has changed in a way that impacts the decision to do whatever it was you were going to do, because that's in effect rewarding them for forgetting.

E.x. if someone forgets to cast a targeted MW power, gets halfway through their shooting phase and brings your hero down to 1 wound and now wants to go back and use their targeted MW power to make sure it dies, no, they can't do that, because they're benefitting from information they didn't have at the time. But if they have a psyker out of smite range that has only a single buff power and there's only a single target it could go on, and they forget to do that, it probably isn't a problem to let them go back and do it even halfway through their shooting phase, because no information they gained in-between could have changed their plan.

At a tournament I would check in at the beginning of the game to see how the other player feels ahead of time, though, so everyone is on the same page. I.e. "How do you want to deal with forgetting things? Ok to go back if the board state hasn't changed? Or hardcore 'nope, you said you were moving to the next phase, no going back no matter if you realize 2 seconds later that you forgot to do something critical?'" And I'll leave it up to them which to choose.

In my experience playing hardcore and not talking to each other about intent or your rules, not allowing any going back, etc actually tends to make the games longer and more tedious, because people then feel the need to double and triple check everything they do. Certainly that's what I do in that situation, whereas if I was playing with someone less uptight, I play a lot quicker because I know we're playing by intent and being flexible with one another.

Oh you absolutely need to communicate.

Many many many years ago, some douche nozzle did an article on Warseer (yes that long ago!) about the “psychology of 40K” which was basically not saying anything beyond “your turn” to your opponent.

I’m guessing we can all share a pretty dim view of such behaviour.

But in this instance, to recap my feels?

1. Very happy to explain my datacard and army rules to my opponent. Copy of codex, supplement, WD article and FAQ readily accessible for my opponent to read.

2. Asking me to react before you act, that’s not sporting. Because I don’t feel that’s how stratagems specifically are meant to work. They’re my Get Out Of Jail free cards if you like. A wee advantage to be used at my discretion and my discretion alone.

3. Absolutely on board with the whole “does it change the board” as ably described by yukishiro above.

4. If my opponent is about to skip a phase? I’ll remind them. This one specifically stems from an edition change of WHFB, where the timing of the Magic Phase changed. When you’re A Sad Old Git like wot I r, you appreciate “wait, you’re skipping your psychic phase?” type reminders are welcome.

Sportsmanship. That’s what counts. It’s one thing to capitalise on a tactical blunder. It’s quite another to be a dick.

Eh I agree in principle but if you forgot to cast a certain power even though nothing changed in between board state wise, you are half way into your shooting phase and it's on you to remember your on rules. I would not allow you to attempt to cast it at that point.
Generally the only thing we allow to roll back that far into a different phase are things that the game says MUST happen, like a combat we forgot about or a morale test. Everything else is up to the players to remember. Does it make sense your Terminators forgot to shoot at a unit in front of them? Nope, but by now we are in my movement phase and really it's on you.

It’s definitely contextual.

If you’ve missed a phase, it’s on me to remind you as you move on to the next. Because if I wait until you’ve rolled dice? Maybe I’m only reminding because your roll was unfavourable?

Likewise, if you’ve got ahead of yourself, then realise your shooting (for argument sake) could’ve been better structured? If it’s mid-phase, that’d a no-no for me. Certainly not an entire phase do over.

 Castozor wrote:
Eh I agree in principle but if you forgot to cast a certain power even though nothing changed in between board state wise, you are half way into your shooting phase and it's on you to remember your on rules. I would not allow you to attempt to cast it at that point.

Why not? If there's no harm, why say no for the sake of saying no? I mean you can obviously play how you want to, it just seems odd to insist on something that amounts to a feels bad for your opponent when there's no actual reason for it.

Obviously you can't go back and do something after your opponent starts their turn, because once your opponent starts doing stuff that\s almost always going to be a change in the board state. But if you spot something during your own turn and nothing has changed re: the board state, I don't see any actual reason why you shouldn't be able to go back and fix it, and several reasons why I should let you (your feelings, assuming you want to, the possibility that the same might happen to me later, and the benefit to the game as a whole that comes from it being determined by tactics, not brain farts), so it seems like a no-brainer to me to let that happen.

It also seems problematic to me to have unclear standards about how far you can go back, because that creates the possibility for disagreements and bad feelings. If you can't tie your "no" to some actual principle like the board state, I don't know how you can decide when "too much time has passed" vs " no, that one's ok," and that has the potential for people to start arguing about whether things are being applied fairly to the actions of both players. Like if I told the opponent he couldn't go back and do something, despite no change to the board state, I wouldn't feel able to then ask to do anything myself later that wasn't strictly within the normal sequence, because I'd be afraid he'd construe it as me playing by one set of rules for me and a different set of rules for him.

I don't always go back in time, but when I do, it's to allow somebody to do something they forgot to do that was a no-brainer. This is not the same as allowing someone to do something different with the same piece. Because that could lead to a time flux. And that's bad.

That's why playing by intent is so useful. If you say "I'm going to use this guy to get engage" and then afterward you mistakenly move him an inch in the wrong direction so he doesn't qualify, it's not a big deal to fix the movement when you realize it (assuming again it hasn't impacted the board state). But if you haven't announced your intention, your opponent may think you're trying to pull a fast one, even though really you just made a technical error. When you announce your intent, most things become a no-brainer, as you and your opponent both know exactly what you were trying to do.

If we are talking tournament only here then other than myself I prefer to let my opponent know about anything that might catch them off guard in the game we are about to play from the start. An example would be "all my space wolves can heroicly intervene and there is a strat to make one do it 6" instead of 3."

Beyond that it comes down to questions asked. I had a game once where I asked "do you have anything of yours that can deep strike" my opponent said no (8th ed game) and then first turn said "I am picking these guys up, they will be deep striking next turn". I pointed out I asked him if he could do that and he said no.... the response was "they were not deep striking, but I didn't ask if anything could redeploy once on the table...."

People who know your intentions on asking questions and purposely are deceptive about their answer because you didn't ask the question in the correct way to me are just there to win, not have fun. Thankfully this was not a tournament game and the answer was "dude, you knew my intention when I asked. If that is how you play the game fine" and I just declined future offers to play against said person. Funny how soon after he switched games because no one at the flgs wanted to play him...

In a tournament setting this would piss me off and I would definitely let the TO know how it went and why I would not be interested in coming back next time if that's the kind of thing I continued to run into. Winning with a gotcha isn't cheating, but it isn't fair either. Winning because your opponent didn't know the rules means it wasn't a fair fight to begin with, myself I always want both sides to start with the basic fair playing field of having an idea what the opponents army is capable of.

But the onus is on the opponent as well. I ask at the beginning how much have they played. If they say "this is my 5th game" I try and explain the kinds of questions you should ask before starting when going over the army lists. If they say "I have been playing since the start of 5th edition regularly " then if they don't ask me what a relic does when I tell them it's on my chr then at this point I feel it's on them.

I think this game works best when players cooperate to make sure their intentions align with the rules. Like, if me winning or losing requires my opponent to make a mistake with the rules, or not have an idea of what's going to happen, then that's bad.

Is Gotcha Moments Cheating?

No, not at all. Actually I consider it healthy and fun.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 alextroy wrote:
While I don't necessarily agree to the level of disclosure some on this thread have, sharing information about common tools your army has is sporting behavior. Commonly used stratagems are something I'd share just like this unit has the Bodyguard rule, this unit is a Character, and these funky-looking chainswords on my Repentia are Sx2, AP -3, D2, -1 to Hit on a unit that re-rolls hit rolls.

For me, I draw a line between the objective of the game and the goal of the game. My objective is to win, but my goal is to have fun. I'd rather have fun than win. I don't have fun when my opponent can feel justifiably cheated.

Absolutely. But I don't have fun if my opponent dictates me what should I do to counter/prevent his moves, because otherwise his powerful combos will catch me off guard. I'd rather play with the intel I have and see what happens. Of course if someone asks about the opponent's stuff the answers should be honest.

I always try to go into a game at the most forgiving level of sportsmanship possible, meaning for example:

- Let my opponent change a decision if the rest of the "game state" hasn't changed.
- Give all of the information I'd want or think they'd need when it might influence a decision.
- Check in with them if it looks like they've forgotten something.

However, this is limited to how they reciprocate, I'll then play down to their level based on how they act through the game. I'll happily stop acting that way if it's not an attitude that's returned.

I don't see any great achievement in winning through "gotchas" or "misdirection" in relation to rules and game mechanics. Any surprises I spring on an opponent should be tactical not rule interaction based.

It's a game and the "social contract" so to speak is that you're playing on an even footing with the outcome determined by skill, decision making and luck.

Rik

We live in the age of the internet. If you didn't know super simple combos, that's honestly on you. Zero info is hidden. We have people doing codex reviews and tactics, whether it be from Goonhammer or 1d4chan.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
We live in the age of the internet. If you didn't know super simple combos, that's honestly on you. Zero info is hidden. We have people doing codex reviews and tactics, whether it be from Goonhammer or 1d4chan.

This attitude simply doesn't stand up to any real scrutiny....

There are currently 35 Factions listed on the GW Webstore, let's assume someone plays one other game and it's a relatively simple one like Underworlds, but hang on there's another 32 Factions for that.

Lets take a very conservative estimate of 4 combos on average per Faction, each comprising 3 components.

That gives us 268 "combos" with 804 individual components.

Suddenly it becomes apparent that for a lot of people with a job, family, another hobby, whatever that the level of interaction and number of individual pieces to the puzzle can make it difficult.

Rik

It is better for you (well your rep, but that is what this thread is about really, innit ?) to lose a game at a tournament because you were a good sportsman and told your opponent "well I can do that, so..." and then your opponent wins thanks to your kindness.
If you win by skimping on info, it could go down fine (especially if the tournament is full of players who play very often), but it could also not... And you risk coming off as that guy.

Most tourneys I were at, people where quite informative, and so am I, and we are all quite happy, even when we lose because ther opponent does "OK thanks, so now you told me that, I will do this instead".
Of course you can't remind someone all the time about stuff, else you don't have time to finish a game. Just a few things turns 1 and 2. Try to put yourself in the opponent' shoes.

It is toy soldiers, lets be nice about it (at least with an opponent you have no reason to suspect is a douch)

I play soccer in a football club, the mentality is horrible, veryone tries to cheat all the time, the referees are rarely fair. I want the exact opposite of that in anything else I do.

 Rik Lightstar wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
We live in the age of the internet. If you didn't know super simple combos, that's honestly on you. Zero info is hidden. We have people doing codex reviews and tactics, whether it be from Goonhammer or 1d4chan.

This attitude simply doesn't stand up to any real scrutiny....

There are currently 35 Factions listed on the GW Webstore, let's assume someone plays one other game and it's a relatively simple one like Underworlds, but hang on there's another 32 Factions for that.

Lets take a very conservative estimate of 4 combos on average per Faction, each comprising 3 components.

That gives us 268 "combos" with 804 individual components.

Suddenly it becomes apparent that for a lot of people with a job, family, another hobby, whatever that the level of interaction and number of individual pieces to the puzzle can make it difficult.

Rik

I still don't think the opponent has the obligations to teach his/her opponent what his/her army does.

Sure, in a friendly setting, where you're just trying to have fun, I could see one willing to teach the other, but by no means should that player be REQUIRED to teach the other player. This makes no sense to me whatsoever.

On an alternate take, what if it makes it unfun for you when you have to teach the other player how to handle/beat/outsmart my army? What if what you want is a game of wits (augmented by luck of the dice), and not tutorial game? What if you want an opponent that knows what he's doing so the game doesn't end up taking 4 hours to complete, when it should've been over hour and a half ago? Why should one's fun necessarily be the cost of having a "sportsman-like" game?

It's one thing to question the motives/intent for fabricating 'gotcha' moments, but by no means that would be considered 'cheating'. You sure were being 'cheap' but definitely not 'cheating'.

 skchsan wrote:
I still don't think the opponent has the obligations to teach his/her opponent what his/her army does.

Also, people don't have the obligation to be polite to each other, but if one is getting rude, it's perfectly normal to call him/her that.

Basically, it's just common courtesy and fairplay. Some people think that's not their role, fine. Just don't be surprised by the social consequences.

To me, it's not cheating. It's just being a dick to the other.

Sarouan wrote:

 skchsan wrote:
I still don't think the opponent has the obligations to teach his/her opponent what his/her army does.

Also, people don't have the obligation to be polite to each other, but if one is getting rude, it's perfectly normal to call him/her that.

Basically, it's just common courtesy and fairplay. Some people think that's not their role, fine. Just don't be surprised by the social consequences.

To me, it's not cheating. It's just being a dick to the other.

Right, but it's almost as if people are saying being a dick is cheating as far as game of 40k goes.

Or rather, in order to not cheat in 40k is to not be a dick and lay out everything for your opponent because that's sportsmanship.

I'm just having a real hard time following that logic. This is like saying ignorance of the player that doesn't know is ok, but it's wrong for player that knows to not disclose a certain information because that would be maliciously withholding on key information. If it's so important, I think the responsibility should fall on the person who didn't know to know. It just means they were unprepared for the event. Let's face it - 99.99% of the game's rules are posted in internet if you know where to look. The responsibility shouldn't fall on the "cheating" player if his/her opponent didn't know how to use the internet. What if someone who actually knew all the rules but likes to mentally tire out the opponent with incessant queries or cause him to put his guard down because he thinks he's playing against noob? Then who's the one that's "cheating"? Would hustling the other player count as cheating?

Common courtesy, particularly in time constrained setting such as tournaments (after all, the OP is posted on tournament discussion subforum), would also encompass not requiring your opponent to explain his/her army in fine details so you understand his army - you should've done your home work and should already have a working idea on how your opponent's army functions.

IMO, showing up at a tournament expecting your opponents to teach you the in's and out's of his/her army is more of unfair thing to do because that's that much more time unnecessarily spent. I don't think its unfair for the other player to tell him/her "well, you should've done your home work, really, but here is my list - if you have any questions, I can answer them, but I don't want to sit and have to explain what each unit/stratagems do, and specifically what you need to watch out for."

P.S. & final edit: I would be more inclined to believe that we all, as human beings, have moral obligations to be polite to each other. Rude is what you call "things" when they lack the moral obligations to be polite.

I think there’s a disconnect.

So, two statements, to agree or disagree with:

1) You are not required to let your opponent know if they make a bad move, or forget a rule of yours until it’s too late. It may be nice to, but it ain’t cheating not to.

2) Lying to your opponent about your army is cheating. Saying something like “You have no penalties to hit my Venom,” in their movement phase so they move something to target it, and then using their -1 to be hit rule in shooting isn’t just rude, it’s cheating.

 skchsan wrote:
What if what you want is a game of wits (augmented by luck of the dice), and not tutorial game?

"My opponent didn't know about my army's special rules" isn't a contest of wits, it's a contest of knowledge, in a hobby where knowledge is gated behind expensive books. Most competitors don't find "I won the game because my opponent didn't know I could do something" a satisfying victory. If you enjoy the kind of victory that comes from your opponent not knowing the rules, more power to you I guess if you can find a bunch of like-minded people, but it's not how most people in the hobby feel, and that's particularly true when it comes to tournaments.

Competitive 40k is actually quite interesting because it's the complete opposite of cutthroat, at least when it comes to tabletop "manners." Even people who play the most cutthroat competitive lists, taking advantage of the most dubious and obviously unintended of interactions, will typically bend over backwards to make sure your actual experience of playing them is positive and friendly and that you don't feel like you lost because of a lack of information or because you were ambushed with strange rules interactions. In fact, generally the more a player relies on a "gimmick" to win the game, the more likely they are to fully explain that gimmick to you ahead of time to make sure you're aware of it.

So while it isn't technically "cheating" to ambush your opponent with rules, it is very much on the list of behaviors that get you labelled as a bad competitor in 40k.