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.

vict0988 wrote:If your plan amounts to "place my shooty unit in a position where it can get charged from DS and hope my opponent is uneducated" then that's a bad plan, unless of course you deliberately find uneducated players to use your plan on, in that case, sign-ups for the devil club are on floor 666.

Have an exalt!

yukishiro1 wrote:

Tyel wrote:
I wouldn't want people to have a bad experience - but equally there can be a danger that a more experienced player effectively ends up playing both lists. "Remember I can do this" can turn into "you should move there not there, and shoot X rather than Y" etc.

It can, but there's no reason it has to.

This is actually why it makes so much sense to play by intent and to announce that intent. That way it's clear what each player is intending to do, and if what they are actually doing isn't going to accomplish it, the other player can point it out.



I.e. "These guys are going to come out from behind this ruin and shoot your X." "Did you know / remember I have a strat that allows me to make that unit untargetable unless it's the closest unit?" "Oh crap no, in that case I'll have to reconsider where to move them, one sec, sorry." <--Game ultimately improved for both players, and no need to undo the board state because you're talking through it as you do it.

Have an exalt as well. You'd fit in perfectly in our gaming group! Almost an exact verbatim of our tables.

yukishiro1 wrote:
Every time you play someone you should start with: "Are you familiar with how my army works?"

If they say "yes," you can leave it at that, it's on them. If they say "no," explain the general contours of how stuff works, especially anything that differs from the normal rules of the game.

If someone asks what a unit is, you should absolutely tell them not only the name but also any particularly relevant wargear.

Your opponent not telling you a model had a relic when you specifically asked what the model was - especially when he told you the normal gun it had - is bad sportsmanship pure and simple, and he should be ashamed of himself. There is no possible justification for hiding that a model has an artifact.

I'd start here, and tailor it to the experience of the opponent.
If I'm borrowing an army from John that John made and wrote the list for I'm assuming I need more help with that army than he does.
If I'm playing some guy who thinks a couple years of playing various Dawn of War games means he's supposed to say "yes" to how my army plays, then his yes should probably be taken with a grain of salt.

I'd also check the source of the "Gotcha". If you get "gotcha'ed" by the Big Rule Book that's kind of on you (unless you're completely new in which case we're playing an education game where we're already planning on backing up and doing over - and yes in such an education game I would absolutely let them do it, show them the Gotcha then back them up to do something different. Some sign I saw when I was kiddo at school you remember some small but increasing percent of what you see, hear read, and do with do being the biggest ergo let them do, then let them redo.)
The more obscure the source of the Gotcha the more I'd prevent it. My Codex you don't own? Unfair to expect you to intimately know the ins and outs. A white dwarf special rule? Even more so. The datasheet you only get in my model's box in the army you don't play? Yikes.

Another step worth taking is to print two lists. Find a way to identify your units to your list. My units are (mostly - but I have too many for it to be entirely...) individually numbered. I don't have a Tac Squad and an Intercessor squad with the same squad number. It would be pretty simply to put the squad marking on each unit entry in the Battlescribe or ArmyBuilder list give them a copy with the rules summary and they can check a shoulder pad, check the list etc. That's an III on the Shoulder pad that's this specific Infiltrator Squad. I suppose as I get around to it with all the new stuff I'll end up needing to put an alphanumeric code on the bases. If the base says AA5 - that'll be the 5th Captain, Primaris version I finished. BB3 will be the Third, Assault, Terminator and I'll just put the alphanumeric code on the list. Base says BB3? BB3 on the list says - Those are Thunder Hammer and Storm Shield Terminators with this gear, and the gear does this. That way they don't even have to ask if they want to keep their strategy a secret. Of course, I'm still way behind on painting the new stuff so that's a ways down the road and Shoulderpad squad numbers works for now.

Edit to Add: That was a long way of saying this too - I think there's a difference between hiding gear, and playing your own models. I don't expect my opponent to buy every codex, including mine. But I don't want to tell him about a mistake he should know better than making. If I can give you everything you need to know such that I don't have to tell you - like that Squad Numbered list that you can flip through as you make your decisions - with what they have and the rules for what they have - I shouldn't have to tell you they have a mine that will blow up because you charged them You should have read about it in your movement phase when you were deciding if should engage them with your boyz or your Leman Russ Squadron. If the only squad of mine on the board with a Roman Numeral III on the shoulder pad is that Incursor Squad, and you have a piece of paper all your own you can flip through telling you the squad with a roman numeral III on their shoulder pad is an Incursor squad, and it has a mine, and that mine blows up when you charge them... That's why I gave you the paper and the "map key". If you want to ask me which squad is numbered what, that's ok. If you want to point at those Incursors and ask me which squad on the list that is, I'll take a look and tell you its III. And that's another thing that goes both ways. I can probably figure out your plan if you ask me if my Incursors next to your Vanguard Vets have the mine. And it's too late for your Vanguard Vets to move somewhere else had you known. And I'm going to be annoyed if you ask me if they have the mine, while you're really planning on something else and the question is just a red herring.

edwardmyst wrote:
Looking for how people feel about sharing things about your army with your opponent. I know the old share roster etc, but often opponents don't have time or inclination (and sometimes, knowledge) to completely understand an army roster.

I am not a fan of the "gotcha" nature 40k has taken (my opinion, I know).
So, for example, recently I have started using Incursors as a good take and hold an objective squad. What are people's thoughts on telling/reminding opponent's about the Haywire mine? (only effective if the unit is charged). Do you tell your oppenent at the beginning of the game? Assume since he looked at your roster he will remember that unit has one, or remind if he looks to charge them etc?

My games are almost entirely friendly, so my group would give a warning. Perhaps a simple "don't forget the Haywire mine" when the unit is moved on the objective. And of course any opponent who asks what's that unit, what do they do etc gets told.

Recently, at a tournament, I had an opponent not tell me what relic a character was carrying, even when I asked "What unit is that again?" He told me the unit name (some sort of necron HQ I'd never heard of) and their standard gun, but not the special relic they had. His justification was I didn't ask about the relic. When he revealed it I just nodded, took the result, and went on. I might have been angry, but it turned out ineffective and I destroyed the HQ anyway. It wasn't the way my group plays, so for me it wasn't the friendly spirit of the game. Another opinion, I know.

Where are you on things like that?

There are no rules for this in offisial 40K tournaments as far as I know.

Mtg has offisial rules, both in what rules apply to the game, but also in how a tournament is to be run. If an argument comes up there you are to call a judge. And both players can get warnings for 'failing to maintain gamestates'. As a tournament would be moving along you can always get buried in these warnings if you misbehave and they would result I game losses for the player. Mtg is played in a best of 3, while 40K is played in a best of one, so incorporate game losses would be very unfair there.

Also, what you always have access to in a mtg tournament is the offisial ruling on a card. If they are in non English, has an erata etc. I assume in a tournament or game setting you would have access to your opponents datahstees. But from a practical situation asking to take 15 minutes to look up the opponents units, stratagem etc. in their codex just eat up to much time. Witch is what you should be doing to avoid things like the mine you talked about.

So from a tactical standpoint it saves time to be transparent with your rules. Reminding the opponent of rules can help a lot to beeing a nice opponent and having faster games.

On the other side asking to see each rule and datasheet all the time is well within your right and will slow down the game to the point of beeing stalling. (Imagine of you asked a SM player to verify movement range and BS everytime a unit moved or fired. Or checking if every stratagem and relic used is worded as they say it is.) That would take up to much time.

Depending on how you asked I would say your opponent not informing you about a relic is just very bad manners to outright lying. Lying is not acceptable, nor is cheating. I know mtg went through some rough patches in the early days where some argued cheating was alloved. They compared it to cheating it football, and either you got away with it or you did not. I am on the side that such behavior is very bad behavior. Also, 40K as a game would be very hard to enforce if such cheating happened. Imagine if you treated your SM as having a base movement of 7 instead of 6. And every time you moved a model both players would have to measure. That sounds very time consuming.

edwardmyst wrote:
Recently, at a tournament, I had an opponent not tell me what relic a character was carrying, even when I asked "What unit is that again?" He told me the unit name (some sort of necron HQ I'd never heard of) and their standard gun, but not the special relic they had. His justification was I didn't ask about the relic. When he revealed it I just nodded, took the result, and went on. I might have been angry, but it turned out ineffective and I destroyed the HQ anyway. It wasn't the way my group plays, so for me it wasn't the friendly spirit of the game.

That was really a dick move. Reminds me of one of the least pleasant games I had - vs Eldar in 5th edition. I specifically asked my opponent if the unit I was about to charge has any power weapons. I heard no, only to hear after charge that both IC and squad leader mook had S9 melee weapons that were technically not power weapons but still ignored all armour saves, completely ruining my game plan. A+ sportmanship right there

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Umm... shouldn't it be obvious if the squad has a Hawywire mine? I mean, there's literally a model holding it.

In case you didn't notice, one model has it. So, if you were to make 2x5 men units out of the box, one squad will end up without it. Or both, if you use knife or pistol arm instead.

Unless you're telling us it's completely and utterly impossible to ever put models together in anything other than GW mandated bit order and color scheme and not just conversions but arm swaps are verboten - which I frankly wouldn't be surprised you would seeing you always see 3 models in a box that makes dozens of completely different minis

yukishiro1 wrote:

Tyel wrote:
I wouldn't want people to have a bad experience - but equally there can be a danger that a more experienced player effectively ends up playing both lists. "Remember I can do this" can turn into "you should move there not there, and shoot X rather than Y" etc.

It can, but there's no reason it has to.

This is actually why it makes so much sense to play by intent and to announce that intent. That way it's clear what each player is intending to do, and if what they are actually doing isn't going to accomplish it, the other player can point it out.

I.e. "These guys are going to come out from behind this ruin and shoot your X." "Did you know / remember I have a strat that allows me to make that unit untargetable unless it's the closest unit?" "Oh crap no, in that case I'll have to reconsider where to move them, one sec, sorry." <--Game ultimately improved for both players, and no need to undo the board state because you're talking through it as you do it.

But your example doesn't work, especially when dealing with limited resources. "Did you remember I have. Strat that allows me to make that unit untargetargetable unless it's the closest unit?" sounds like a bluff to a player who either wants to make you spend CP, or just wants to take risks.

I don't understand your point. The player's answer could also be "yes I did remember, I want to make you spend the CP" - how would that change anything? Either way it shows why playing by intent is useful.

 Irbis wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Umm... shouldn't it be obvious if the squad has a Hawywire mine? I mean, there's literally a model holding it.

In case you didn't notice, one model has it. So, if you were to make 2x5 men units out of the box, one squad will end up without it. Or both, if you use knife or pistol arm instead.

Unless you're telling us it's completely and utterly impossible to ever put models together in anything other than GW mandated bit order and color scheme and not just conversions but arm swaps are verboten - which I frankly wouldn't be surprised you would seeing you always see 3 models in a box that makes dozens of completely different minis

In this particular instance, you get two of 'em in the box. The Incursor/Infiltrator sprue has enough parts for five guys, and there's two sprues included.

If you aren't being proactively honest, why are you trying to play a game for fun?

If you don't want to have fun, do something else.

For play in tournaments, it should be standard to receive some form of list about your opponents army, and they receive one for yours.

In social play, I always make sure to show my opponent the detachment on paper, and in most cases, especially if I've never played against this person. I'll ask them if there is anything about my army that they don't readily know.

As an aside from that I may do the same of them, but seeing as I've got a tablet at my disposal with nearly every updated army list on it. I usually don't have to do as such.

I always remind if I remember myself. Like, "yeah, but don't forget these have melta bombs" or "these have Crusader/Fleet, so they might end up further than you'd expect", etc, etc.
This whole "gotcha" thing feels like some yugioh/mtg level gak.

Being of old fantasy stock my natural reaction is that spells, magic items, hidden units etc should be secret as a lot of these rules relied on that. In modern 40k/AOS though I think you guys are right, there's just so many unique army abilities and weapons that openness is necessary.

My general gaming group just WhatsApps the list we're using to one another from BS. BS generally shows every bit of wargear anyway, and we're very forgiving when it comes to casual games, so we normally end up saying what pre-game strats, what relics, etc, are being used.

:EDIT:
This is with the caveat that we send the lists to one another by a pre-agreed deadline, and we all generally wait for everyone to confirm they have their list before sending stuff. This way it minimises the list tailoring, outside of "I know player Y will be using their marines, and player X is probably going to bring their necrons".

Dai wrote:
Being of old fantasy stock my natural reaction is that spells, magic items, hidden units etc should be secret as a lot of these rules relied on that. In modern 40k/AOS though I think you guys are right, there's just so many unique army abilities and weapons that openness is necessary.

Pretty much this.

I am absolutely an advocate for Fixed List Writing though. No allowing a certain amount of “spare” points for war gear, or the selection of psychic powers and warlord traits until you see who you’re facing.

The exception is of course if you want to roll up random spells/powers. That’s different, because you’re accepting the risk you’ll roll poorly. And no changing your mind to picking them later. If you’ve not written specific powers down on your list, you’re rolling for them.

If you’ve written multiple lists? I get to pick one (though I’d do so at random), because writing different lists, then deciding once you know who your opponent is is poor sportsmanship in my book.

And if you were thinking of waiting to see what I’ve taken before writing your list, just pack up and go home, yeah?

All of that depends on the context, I'd say. Back when I played a lot more Warhammer and 40k than I do now, we absolutely keep wargear cards, magic items, etc, secret, and we'd all tailor our army lists to fight whatever army we were facing. Which is fine, because we were all doing it, and anyway, it's funny when your mate tailors his army against the footsloggers you've been using for ages then you bring out that tank you got the week before.

Not on against strangers, I suppose, though.

IMO the "WAAC tournament player" part of the hobby would benefit a lot from approaching the game like infinity does. No on the table "gotcha" moments. Intent-based gameplay is the best because it actually tests the strategic skill instead of relying on gotchas.

Interacting with your opponent as you're moving a unit and asking him how far you can with your Unit A in order to see his Unit B but not his Unit C is a perfect example of that. Same thing with special abilities that some models have, "you're moving in the zone of control of my hacker/crazykoala, is that your goal?". It makes the games soooo much more interesting and fun IMO. There are still "gotchas" in Infinity (hidden deployment, camo, parachutists) but from the information you have on the table, nothing is really hidden. And you'll learn eventually what the hidden units of other armies are.

edwardmyst wrote:
Looking for how people feel about sharing things about your army with your opponent. I know the old share roster etc, but often opponents don't have time or inclination (and sometimes, knowledge) to completely understand an army roster.

I am not a fan of the "gotcha" nature 40k has taken (my opinion, I know).
So, for example, recently I have started using Incursors as a good take and hold an objective squad. What are people's thoughts on telling/reminding opponent's about the Haywire mine? (only effective if the unit is charged). Do you tell your oppenent at the beginning of the game? Assume since he looked at your roster he will remember that unit has one, or remind if he looks to charge them etc?

My games are almost entirely friendly, so my group would give a warning. Perhaps a simple "don't forget the Haywire mine" when the unit is moved on the objective. And of course any opponent who asks what's that unit, what do they do etc gets told.

Recently, at a tournament, I had an opponent not tell me what relic a character was carrying, even when I asked "What unit is that again?" He told me the unit name (some sort of necron HQ I'd never heard of) and their standard gun, but not the special relic they had. His justification was I didn't ask about the relic. When he revealed it I just nodded, took the result, and went on. I might have been angry, but it turned out ineffective and I destroyed the HQ anyway. It wasn't the way my group plays, so for me it wasn't the friendly spirit of the game. Another opinion, I know.

Where are you on things like that?

When going over your army, you are obligated to inform your opponent all the options that your units are equipped with, which includes warlord traits, relics, and psychic powers. What their rules are is also open information, so you don't have to tell them spontaneously, but if they ask what it does then you should answer truthfully. You are not obligated to tell them what you're going to do with any give upgrade.

Worst gaming experience I've had in the last 10 years:

Me: Oh Inquisitor Coteaz? What special stuff does he do again?

Opponent: He does X, and Y

Me: *First turn Drop Pods near opposing army

Opponent: Ohh, I forgot to tell you that Coteaz does Z, which is allows models within (whatever distance) shoot at all your Pods and troops when they arrive within (whatever distance).

Me: . . . .

That guy was also lying to you, he only lets one <ORDO> unit do that, so unless he was doing the cheese combo with the Ordo Land Raider, it wasn't much to worry about.

Unless it was a really long time ago I guess, I dunno how he worked in say 7th.

yukishiro1 wrote:
That guy was also lying to you, he only lets one <ORDO> unit do that, so unless he was doing the cheese combo with the Ordo Land Raider, it wasn't much to worry about.

Unless it was a really long time ago I guess, I dunno how he worked in say 7th.

Previously, the unit he was attached to could fire at any unit from arriving in reserve 12" away from Inquisitor Coteaz.

This is also the subject of one of my favorite moments in 40k, when my opponent deep strike mishaped a Riptide into a building, and I got to place it, and chose to place it right where he was going to put it, and he was like "wait what?" and I was like "Coteaz' blob o' guns now says **** your Anime Robot".

yukishiro1 wrote:
That guy was also lying to you, he only lets one <ORDO> unit do that, so unless he was doing the cheese combo with the Ordo Land Raider, it wasn't much to worry about.

Unless it was a really long time ago I guess, I dunno how he worked in say 7th.

I think it was 6th ed. If it was 7th I would have been rolling Gladius Double-Demi and I don't think I was.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
That guy was also lying to you, he only lets one <ORDO> unit do that, so unless he was doing the cheese combo with the Ordo Land Raider, it wasn't much to worry about.

Unless it was a really long time ago I guess, I dunno how he worked in say 7th.

Previously, the unit he was attached to could fire at any unit from arriving in reserve 12" away from Inquisitor Coteaz.

This is also the subject of one of my favorite moments in 40k, when my opponent deep strike mishaped a Riptide into a building, and I got to place it, and chose to place it right where he was going to put it, and he was like "wait what?" and I was like "Coteaz' blob o' guns now says **** your Anime Robot".

I don't know if I ever remember seeing a Riptide Deep Strike, actually.

They had a strat to deep strike stuff from a Manta (big flyer).


I've never had an opponent flat out cheat me at a tournament, but i have attended tournies where the local crowd had house rules in favor of their armies.

I also screwed myself out of things in the past and had opponents not remind me of the correct rules, but to be fair, they could have also not known the proper rule.

 Insectum7 wrote:
Worst gaming experience I've had in the last 10 years:

Me: Oh Inquisitor Coteaz? What special stuff does he do again?

Opponent: He does X, and Y

Me: *First turn Drop Pods near opposing army

Opponent: Ohh, I forgot to tell you that Coteaz does Z, which is allows models within (whatever distance) shoot at all your Pods and troops when they arrive within (whatever distance).

Me: . . . .

That's not new info though.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Worst gaming experience I've had in the last 10 years:

Me: Oh Inquisitor Coteaz? What special stuff does he do again?

Opponent: He does X, and Y

Me: *First turn Drop Pods near opposing army

Opponent: Ohh, I forgot to tell you that Coteaz does Z, which is allows models within (whatever distance) shoot at all your Pods and troops when they arrive within (whatever distance).

Me: . . . .

That's not new info though.

Are you suggesting that it's ok that my opponent didn't tell me a very relevant piece of information even after I specifically asked them?

All our games, even friendly ones, start with one of us giving a printed copy of his list to the opponent (that does the same) and then a rundown of 1-2 minutes about everything basic "I have a batallion detachment. This captain is my warlord with this warlord trait and this relic, I have a librarian with this psychic powers, I have tree intercessors units this one has heavy stalker bolt rifles, etc... etc..."

I'll admit I go to lenghts that maybe some others would considerd unnecesary, like when one player in the final of one of our local tournaments, in 9th, was tripointing one of my squads of stealth suits with his nurglings and I said to him that stealth suits have fly so it was useless, and he corrected the movement and did another thing instead.

I won't give advice like "Maybe put this unit here instead of here" because that would be stupid, but when my opponent is making a obvious mistake made around lack of information of something that my army has "automatically", I always point it out. Like when my enemy starts the deployment of deep strikers and I'll remember him that I have a stratagem that allows me to shoot them when they arrive. The gotcha moment is stupid and doesnt feel good. But removing the "gotcha!" doesnt remove the power of one of those tools, it just gives an opportunity to your opponent to make a tactical decision instead of a blind one. When I point out that I have that option, the game becomes more depth for both of us because he now has to chose in what order he wants to deepstrike his units, and I have to chose how I'mm gonna respond.

A gotcha is cheap and doest make an engaging experience.

As the lone regular Guard player in my group I find it is a necessity that I make the many Marine and now Necron players know how my army works. I don't expect myself to know everything about their army and I sure as Hell don't expect them.

 BlackoCatto wrote:
As the lone regular Guard player in my group I find it is a necessity that I make the many Marine and now Necron players know how my army works. I don't expect myself to know everything about their army and I sure as Hell don't expect them.

Whaaat? You can go from a 5+ to a 4+ Sv with your 10-man 1w t3 unit, what a gotcha. /s

Getting hit by 15 plasma hits is a lot worse or pointing all of a Shadowsword's guns at a vehicle and then getting got by a surprise 4++.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Worst gaming experience I've had in the last 10 years:

Me: Oh Inquisitor Coteaz? What special stuff does he do again?

Opponent: He does X, and Y

Me: *First turn Drop Pods near opposing army

Opponent: Ohh, I forgot to tell you that Coteaz does Z, which is allows models within (whatever distance) shoot at all your Pods and troops when they arrive within (whatever distance).

Me: . . . .

That's not new info though.

Are you suggesting that it's ok that my opponent didn't tell me a very relevant piece of information even after I specifically asked them?

Yeah. It's not their job to babysit you. Even in the mid 2000s we had summaries of rules. If you don't at least have a very small idea of what a model does, you deserve a loss. Research takes very little time

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Worst gaming experience I've had in the last 10 years:

Me: Oh Inquisitor Coteaz? What special stuff does he do again?

Opponent: He does X, and Y

Me: *First turn Drop Pods near opposing army

Opponent: Ohh, I forgot to tell you that Coteaz does Z, which is allows models within (whatever distance) shoot at all your Pods and troops when they arrive within (whatever distance).

Me: . . . .

That's not new info though.

Are you suggesting that it's ok that my opponent didn't tell me a very relevant piece of information even after I specifically asked them?

Yeah. It's not their job to babysit you. Even in the mid 2000s we had summaries of rules. If you don't at least have a very small idea of what a model does, you deserve a loss. Research takes very little time

Insectum specifically asked "What does Coteaz do?"

They knew Coteaz was a special character. They probably remembered that they were a potent one, but didn't fully remember what they did. So they asked-and got an incomplete answer.

Which would you rather have happen in a game-your opponent ask "What does [UNIT] do?" and you explain it fully, or your opponent asks "What does [UNIT] do?" and then pull out their phone to research it for themselves?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Spoiler:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Worst gaming experience I've had in the last 10 years:

Me: Oh Inquisitor Coteaz? What special stuff does he do again?

Opponent: He does X, and Y

Me: *First turn Drop Pods near opposing army

Opponent: Ohh, I forgot to tell you that Coteaz does Z, which is allows models within (whatever distance) shoot at all your Pods and troops when they arrive within (whatever distance).

Me: . . . .

That's not new info though.

Are you suggesting that it's ok that my opponent didn't tell me a very relevant piece of information even after I specifically asked them?

Yeah. It's not their job to babysit you. Even in the mid 2000s we had summaries of rules. If you don't at least have a very small idea of what a model does, you deserve a loss. Research takes very little time

You mean like asking the other player about what a model does?

I mean I'm not surprised you're gonna be "that guy", but ok.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Yeah. It's not their job to babysit you. Even in the mid 2000s we had summaries of rules. If you don't at least have a very small idea of what a model does, you deserve a loss. Research takes very little time

Thats a "yikes" from me, dawg.

Seriously, thats such a toxic behavior to have... Just to be able to abuse someone not knowing all the rules in the game.