Switch Theme:

Is Gotcha Moments Cheating?  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Mysterious Techpriest






9th is an amazing edition but it has a lot of unique characteristics that can change the outcome of the game. Is using an unknown stratagem or doing something your opponent is unaware of that catches them off guard considered cheating?

   
Made in us
Insect-Infested Nurgle Chaos Lord





In My Lab

 CKO wrote:
9th is an amazing edition but it has a lot of unique characteristics that can change the outcome of the game. Is using an unknown stratagem or doing something your opponent is unaware of that catches them off guard considered cheating?
No-but lying would be.

If your opponent says "I'm gonna shoot my tank at your Rangers," you're not obligated to tell them you have a strat that forces the tank to only hit on 6s.
If your opponent says "I'm gonna shoot my tank at your Rangers-do you have any defensive strats you can play right now?" then telling them no is lying, and therefore cheating.

Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne! 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




 CKO wrote:
9th is an amazing edition but it has a lot of unique characteristics that can change the outcome of the game. Is using an unknown stratagem or doing something your opponent is unaware of that catches them off guard considered cheating?


Absolutely not. Just coming at it from the side of practicality, how many stratagems or special rules could potentially affect a given unit? How many do I then need to divulge? As the poster above said, lying would be cheating but the onus is on the player to ask those questions if they're not sure.

This is one of my problem with stratagems. There are so many of them and they're often integral to how certain armies or units function that not knowing about them can severely mess up your plans. It also adds to the information overload when you pick up a new army. In addition to all the special rules every unit must now come loaded down with you also need to check for stratagems that could apply to them. It's also really annoying to be on the receiving end of some hidden gotcha moment and equally unsatisfying to be the one handing out the gotcha. It probably only happens once against any given opponent, but I still don't like how stratagems work.
   
Made in gb
Been Around the Block





 CKO wrote:
9th is an amazing edition but it has a lot of unique characteristics that can change the outcome of the game. Is using an unknown stratagem or doing something your opponent is unaware of that catches them off guard considered cheating?


Not cheating, but depending on the setting I would call it bad sportsmanship. In a tournament - go for it you're all playing for the win. But outside of that it would strike me as extremely anti-fun. And with there being so many stratagems etc in the game these days its impossible to learn them all.
   
Made in gb
Lord of the Fleet






London

I'd say it entirely depends on the context:
- If I was playing a veteran player, then I'd have no issues with it at all. I've taken a fair bit of time to know most armies' particular strengths and possibly Gotchas, it's likely he's done the same.

- If it was a casual game (ie; new player, or someone trying a new army), then yeah I would inform them of a particular Gotcha.

In either case I'm very much against the rule-bending aspect of such moments, such as the YMDC threads which go on for several pages arguing about the exact English definition of one word in a particular rule. Overall though, in any case it's not cheating. Like I said it depends on the context, and in some cases it could be bad sportsmanship, but you're not obliged to tell the opponent anything unless it'd be breaking the rules.

   
Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut




UK

40K is an open rules system, that means whatever is in the main rule book and whatever is in your codex (and any supplements) is considered "assumed knowledge".

That means your opponent is 100% free to know all of it.


The only "hidden" information aspects are some select units, often things like assassins and such which can sometimes pop out of other units and are deployed in those units in secret. Typically this information is kept hidden, but is openly written on paper (covered) so that when the unit is revealed the player can prove that they've not just changed their mind mid game (and cna also remind themselves mid game too).




Now as to how much information you choose to volunteer to your opponent, that varies depending on the situation. At a competitive event you would not be expected to be up front about as much of it. You're there to compete and there's often a time limit so you don't have the luxury to spend half an hour going over each others armies and such prior to the game.

At any other event its totally down to you and your opponent. There's no general rule or guideline you just have to work it out between you at the time.





Also remember that part of wargames is making mistakes (its part of real war too). Even in some teaching games its good to let your opponent make a mistake and see the result of their mistake. They will learn from it and its also a good time to help them learn how to go with the flow. So they've just wasted their anti-tank shots on a tank that's immune to them. Now they've learned that, but also now they can learn how to recover from that mistake, how to keep going.

Because even players who know the game inside and out will make mistakes and forget things.

   
Made in fi
Ye Lord of The End Times (and a good guy)





 CKO wrote:
9th is an amazing edition but it has a lot of unique characteristics that can change the outcome of the game. Is using an unknown stratagem or doing something your opponent is unaware of that catches them off guard considered cheating?


Not really no. But as I prefer to win by skill rather than gotcha's I make sure opponent knows any unusual combo's I might have.

Makes winning more satisfying and ensures I can win consistently rather than depend on one off gotcha's.

2021 painted/bought: 538/575 
   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba






if a stratagem is super integral to my army, especially if it's a brand new one, I'll definitely lay it out for my opponent as we're going over lists. Like if I'm playing thousand sons, the fact hat my 20-man block of rubrics is going to pay 1cp to infiltrate, and has a 1cp ability to shoot again if it doesn't move, and also my warlord trait lets me redeploy - that's critical info for how like 1/4 of my army and a large amount of my upfront damage is going to be working.

If my opponent is surprised by some 1cp -1 to hit ability or something...then...I dunno. Eh. I've had people get salty about that kind of stuff before, like "if you'd told me about that Lurk in the Shadows stratagem that gives you +1 to your save in cover for 1cp, I wouldn't have shot my guns at those guys!"

"I can't believe all these tryhard WAACs out there just care about winning all the time when it's supposed to be a game for fun!!!!!!! Also here's my 27 page essay on why marines are OP and Orkz should get a bunch of OP rules so I can win more games

-the_scotsman"

-ERJAK 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





OKC, OK USA

 Valkyrie wrote:

- If I was playing a veteran player


 Valkyrie wrote:

- If it was a casual game


These two things are not mutually exclusive. Having played this game over 25 years, I'd definitely be classed as a vet player, but also definitely don't have the time these days to learn every single trick in every army and thus play more casual.

You know you're really doing something when you can make strangers hate you over the Internet. - Mauleed
Just remember folks. Panic. Panic all the time. It's the only way to survive, other than just being mindful, of course-but geez, that's so friggin' boring. - Aegis Grimm
Hallowed is the All Pie
The Before Times: A Place That Celebrates The World That Was 
   
Made in de
Longtime Dakkanaut




It's not cheating, but trying to rely/engineer gotcha-moments is increasingly frowned upon / seen as un-sportsmanlike.

But of course, it also varies from location to location, group to group.


Social norms in (competitive) 40K usually aren't static.



For example, 7-8 years ago, slow-playing/ending games after turn 3 or even 2 if it benefits you, was much more common, even if considered cheesy/unsportsmanlike. But over the past half decade or so, opinions/perceptions gradually changed, the behaviour became increasingly scorned, and eventually the trend culminated in TOs adopting chess-clock rules, etc.., ultimately turning "scummy-but-legal" into "not-allowed-at-this-tournament".

Seems like "Gotcha-40K" is slowly moving the same direction (if at different speed in different locations), but there're currently no agreed-upon-sanctions/community-rules against it as developed, for example, against slow-play.
   
Made in gb
Lord of the Fleet






London

 Platuan4th wrote:
 Valkyrie wrote:

- If I was playing a veteran player


 Valkyrie wrote:

- If it was a casual game


These two things are not mutually exclusive. Having played this game over 25 years, I'd definitely be classed as a vet player, but also definitely don't have the time these days to learn every single trick in every army and thus play more casual.


You're right in that. I'd also consider myself a veteran player but prefer casual games. Those two examples were more opposite ends of the player spectrum and how Gotcha moments can vary between them.

   
Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut




UK

I'd argue rules "gotcha" is very different to deliberate slow play.

Deliberate slow play is a conscious action someone takes to engineer the game to their own advantage by denying their opponent time to play

Rules "gotcha" moments are very different because by and large you don't do them overtly, they happen because of how GW writes rules for the game and the diversity and volume of those rules. They would only move into cheating/unsportsmanlike when your opponent asks and you deny the information to them - ergo lie.


About the only good and sensible social approach I can think of is to enforce proper written (typed/phone) army lists. Heck a proper working app would go a long way - allowing your opponent to "slide" you their army over the app so that you can, on your phone/tablet, call up their army list, check its points, check the equipment, check the abilities etc... With special options to "hide" hidden units like assassins when their deployment location is kept hidden. (when they are inserted into units on the tabletop)

   
Made in gb
Last Remaining Whole C'Tan






 JNAProductions wrote:
 CKO wrote:
9th is an amazing edition but it has a lot of unique characteristics that can change the outcome of the game. Is using an unknown stratagem or doing something your opponent is unaware of that catches them off guard considered cheating?
No-but lying would be.

If your opponent says "I'm gonna shoot my tank at your Rangers," you're not obligated to tell them you have a strat that forces the tank to only hit on 6s.
If your opponent says "I'm gonna shoot my tank at your Rangers-do you have any defensive strats you can play right now?" then telling them no is lying, and therefore cheating.


I’m not sure I agree. I mean, I see where you’re coming from like, but I have a different conclusion.

I mean, if they ask “do you have any defensive strats” is an open question. I could simply reply “yes”. I could say “well, I’ve got x CP to play with” and various variants from there, up to and including specifying a strat I would use.

What does my opponent do then? He’s already declared his shooting, so is tied to it surely? If he’s getting salty because I predicted his choice and have a defence planned, I don’t understand why that would be seen as cheating?

Maybe it’s a hangover from my WHFB days, where we never declared specific Magic Items loaded onto characters. Indeed there were specific spells and abilities, but it was all very much Find Out In Play (FOIP).

Sure, FOIP can lead to a Gotcha, and that can be frustrating. It’s happened to me before, but the only one I objected to was someone declaring a Tournament Specific Rule was in force, without discussing that variance from the core rules with me beforehand. If it’s my opponent having a layered defence strategy I didn’t account for, that’s solely on me?

I think the furthest I would go is if my army is from WD or relies on an expansion book, giving my opponent the opportunity to read it, and have it freely accessible to them during the game. Not only is refusing to let them check your Codex a dick move, but it can also raised suspicions of cheating which aren’t necessarily founded.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/04/06 12:05:45


Fed up of Scalpers? But still want your Exclusives? Why not join us?

Pfizer vaccine administered 13:40pm 18 Feb 21. Still no second head. Second jab 13:35pm 6 May 2021. At the Masonic Hall. 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





OKC, OK USA

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

Maybe it’s a hangover from my WHFB days, where we never declared specific Magic Items loaded onto characters. Indeed there were specific spells and abilities, but it was all very much Find Out In Play (FOIP).


Keeping that stuff secret was technically part of the WHFB rules, hence the numerous items, special rules, and spells that let you force an opponent to divulge that information.

You know you're really doing something when you can make strangers hate you over the Internet. - Mauleed
Just remember folks. Panic. Panic all the time. It's the only way to survive, other than just being mindful, of course-but geez, that's so friggin' boring. - Aegis Grimm
Hallowed is the All Pie
The Before Times: A Place That Celebrates The World That Was 
   
Made in de
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Overread wrote:


Deliberate slow play is a conscious action someone takes to engineer the game to their own advantage by denying their opponent time to play


Not really. Pre-chess clocks, the vast majority of "slow play" wasn't necessarily intentionally malicious, but mostly careless, because the expectation to have "equal time" or "complete all round" wasn't a widespread norm.

It definitely could be intentionally malicious in a minority of cases.


Gotcha-40K is the same. For the majority, it's a (currently) insufficiently spread expectations to declare intents, make the opponent aware of potentially devastating stratagems, etc.. though again in a minority of cases it can be intentionally malicious (as in the case of giving vage/misleading answers even if asked).

They are virtually the same things as far as competitive 40K culture goes, only perhaps 5 years lagging in how much you have to be willing to break with social norms to engage in it.
   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba






 Overread wrote:
I'd argue rules "gotcha" is very different to deliberate slow play.

Deliberate slow play is a conscious action someone takes to engineer the game to their own advantage by denying their opponent time to play

Rules "gotcha" moments are very different because by and large you don't do them overtly, they happen because of how GW writes rules for the game and the diversity and volume of those rules. They would only move into cheating/unsportsmanlike when your opponent asks and you deny the information to them - ergo lie.


About the only good and sensible social approach I can think of is to enforce proper written (typed/phone) army lists. Heck a proper working app would go a long way - allowing your opponent to "slide" you their army over the app so that you can, on your phone/tablet, call up their army list, check its points, check the equipment, check the abilities etc... With special options to "hide" hidden units like assassins when their deployment location is kept hidden. (when they are inserted into units on the tabletop)


Yeah, I can't think of the last time someone actually like, deliberately engineered a situation where they would be like 'ha HA, the thing you didnt know about is what i'm going right now!!"

99.9% of the time, it's just 'opponent has a plan to use a stratagem I don't know about on a unit, I walk right into a situation where that stratagem is powerful, he uses it and i go 'oh, I didn't know about that one.'"

And because it's a game of warhamer in the real universe instead of on the internet, the fact that my opponent got good use out of one stratagem does not instantly end the game in a CRUSHING DEFEAT that I have no chance of ever digging myself out of.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sunny Side Up wrote:
 Overread wrote:


Deliberate slow play is a conscious action someone takes to engineer the game to their own advantage by denying their opponent time to play


Not really. Pre-chess clocks, the vast majority of "slow play" wasn't necessarily intentionally malicious, but mostly careless, because the expectation to have "equal time" or "complete all round" wasn't a widespread norm.

It definitely could be intentionally malicious in a minority of cases.


Gotcha-40K is the same. For the majority, it's a (currently) insufficiently spread expectations to declare intents, make the opponent aware of potentially devastating stratagems, etc.. though again in a minority of cases it can be intentionally malicious (as in the case of giving vage/misleading answers even if asked).

They are virtually the same things as far as competitive 40K culture goes, only perhaps 5 years lagging in how much you have to be willing to break with social norms to engage in it.


yeah, it also speaks to the short memories of all the people who are like 'now that the missions are designed to end immeidately turn 5, the game is so shoooort.'

Like, do people not recall that basically all throughout 5th and 6th edition, 9 out of 10 games ended turn 3 or turn 4 by concession?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/04/06 12:14:02


"I can't believe all these tryhard WAACs out there just care about winning all the time when it's supposed to be a game for fun!!!!!!! Also here's my 27 page essay on why marines are OP and Orkz should get a bunch of OP rules so I can win more games

-the_scotsman"

-ERJAK 
   
Made in us
Insect-Infested Nurgle Chaos Lord





In My Lab

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
 JNAProductions wrote:
 CKO wrote:
9th is an amazing edition but it has a lot of unique characteristics that can change the outcome of the game. Is using an unknown stratagem or doing something your opponent is unaware of that catches them off guard considered cheating?
No-but lying would be.

If your opponent says "I'm gonna shoot my tank at your Rangers," you're not obligated to tell them you have a strat that forces the tank to only hit on 6s.
If your opponent says "I'm gonna shoot my tank at your Rangers-do you have any defensive strats you can play right now?" then telling them no is lying, and therefore cheating.


I’m not sure I agree. I mean, I see where you’re coming from like, but I have a different conclusion.

I mean, if they ask “do you have any defensive strats” is an open question. I could simply reply “yes”. I could say “well, I’ve got x CP to play with” and various variants from there, up to and including specifying a strat I would use.

What does my opponent do then? He’s already declared his shooting, so is tied to it surely? If he’s getting salty because I predicted his choice and have a defence planned, I don’t understand why that would be seen as cheating?

Maybe it’s a hangover from my WHFB days, where we never declared specific Magic Items loaded onto characters. Indeed there were specific spells and abilities, but it was all very much Find Out In Play (FOIP).

Sure, FOIP can lead to a Gotcha, and that can be frustrating. It’s happened to me before, but the only one I objected to was someone declaring a Tournament Specific Rule was in force, without discussing that variance from the core rules with me beforehand. If it’s my opponent having a layered defence strategy I didn’t account for, that’s solely on me?

I think the furthest I would go is if my army is from WD or relies on an expansion book, giving my opponent the opportunity to read it, and have it freely accessible to them during the game. Not only is refusing to let them check your Codex a dick move, but it can also raised suspicions of cheating which aren’t necessarily founded.
I think you might've misread my example.

In the example, the attacking player was announcing his intention to shoot the tank at the Rangers-no dice had been rolled yet, no split-fire shenanigans, so the attacker should be able to switch targets if they decide it's better.
And, in the second set of quotes, the defending player doesn't say "Yes," they say "No." Which is a lie. Would you consider lying to your opponent about public knowledge cheating?

Moreover, I'd consider intentionally being coy with your reply (such as by simply saying "Yes," and not elaborating any further) to just kinda be a waste of time. The attacker will then have to ask "Okay, what do they do?" instead of just being upfront with them. I certainly wouldn't consider a factual, if insufficient, answer to be cheating, though.

Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne! 
   
Made in de
Dakka Veteran





A matter of context IMO. In a tournament setting, you shouldn't be required to explain your army to your opponent. They should know these things, it's part of their preparation for the event.

In a casual environment, withholding such information is probably not going to achieve much. Maybe you can snag a lucky victory by being deceptive or coy about these things, but you'll likely not be very popular within your group.

Then again, surprising your opponent with a stratagem they didn't know can be a nice way to introduce new players to a faction and its intricacies. Totally depends on the execution and your overall attitude, though.

   
Made in us
Insect-Infested Nurgle Chaos Lord





In My Lab

 BertBert wrote:
A matter of context IMO. In a tournament setting, you shouldn't be required to explain your army to your opponent. They should know these things, it's part of their preparation for the event.

In a casual environment, withholding such information is probably not going to achieve much. Maybe you can snag a lucky victory by being deceptive or coy about these things, but you'll likely not be very popular within your group.

Then again, surprising your opponent with a stratagem they didn't know can be a nice way to introduce new players to a faction and its intricacies. Totally depends on the execution and your overall attitude, though.

I agree that you shouldn't have to explain it in advance. If they ask, though, it is public knowledge-you need to let them know.

Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne! 
   
Made in de
Dakka Veteran





Sure, I'd consider that common courtesy.
   
Made in us
Rogue Daemonhunter fueled by Chaos






Macon, GA

 Fergie0044 wrote:
 CKO wrote:
9th is an amazing edition but it has a lot of unique characteristics that can change the outcome of the game. Is using an unknown stratagem or doing something your opponent is unaware of that catches them off guard considered cheating?


Not cheating, but depending on the setting I would call it bad sportsmanship. In a tournament - go for it you're all playing for the win. But outside of that it would strike me as extremely anti-fun. And with there being so many stratagems etc in the game these days its impossible to learn them all.


Yeah, there's literally a term for behavior that's allowed by the rules but discouraged by custom: sportsmanship.


My Painted Armies
: Co. B, 37th Praetorian IG: 21,000pts
KOW Ogres: 4500 points
Loyalist Emperor's Children: 2500 points 
   
Made in us
Trigger-Happy Baal Predator Pilot






All this talk about information in 40k being 'open' is disingenuous at best. For a single army I could end up using 5 books to pull rules/models from. Every one of those books is behind a GW paywall where you can't read the rules if you don't own the book. Are we just assuming that every tournament player has every publication that GW has published and has read all the rules on the units and stratagems in all those publications?

I would expect my opponent to be forthcoming at the start of the game as to which stratagems are available to his army in a general sense. Example: "I can use a stratagem to allow my Sanguinary Guard to Intervene 6", "I have a stratagem to shoot a Slannesh Infantry units weapons twice", etc. I wouldn't expect them to tell me at the beginning of the game that "This strat will be used on these terminators to shoot twice", but just the general text. Gotcha moments are terrible for all involved and should be avoided at all costs. Let the skill of the players on the tabletop determine results, not gotcha moments.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut







 Mulletdude wrote:
All this talk about information in 40k being 'open' is disingenuous at best. For a single army I could end up using 5 books to pull rules/models from. Every one of those books is behind a GW paywall where you can't read the rules if you don't own the book. Are we just assuming that every tournament player has every publication that GW has published and has read all the rules on the units and stratagems in all those publications?

I would expect my opponent to be forthcoming at the start of the game as to which stratagems are available to his army in a general sense. Example: "I can use a stratagem to allow my Sanguinary Guard to Intervene 6", "I have a stratagem to shoot a Slannesh Infantry units weapons twice", etc. I wouldn't expect them to tell me at the beginning of the game that "This strat will be used on these terminators to shoot twice", but just the general text. Gotcha moments are terrible for all involved and should be avoided at all costs. Let the skill of the players on the tabletop determine results, not gotcha moments.


So you show up at a tournament and expect the other player to teach you what their army can do.

What's the difference between a tournament and a regular game then?

Edit: Noting that:
A. You're having this argument on a forum on the internet where there are discussions of tactics.
B. If you were sufficiently motivated, you could go find a tactica for the other faction and get your own summary of their available stratagems.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/04/07 19:47:10


 
   
Made in us
Rogue Daemonhunter fueled by Chaos






Macon, GA

 Mulletdude wrote:
All this talk about information in 40k being 'open' is disingenuous at best. For a single army I could end up using 5 books to pull rules/models from. Every one of those books is behind a GW paywall where you can't read the rules if you don't own the book. Are we just assuming that every tournament player has every publication that GW has published and has read all the rules on the units and stratagems in all those publications?

I would expect my opponent to be forthcoming at the start of the game as to which stratagems are available to his army in a general sense. Example: "I can use a stratagem to allow my Sanguinary Guard to Intervene 6", "I have a stratagem to shoot a Slannesh Infantry units weapons twice", etc. I wouldn't expect them to tell me at the beginning of the game that "This strat will be used on these terminators to shoot twice", but just the general text. Gotcha moments are terrible for all involved and should be avoided at all costs. Let the skill of the players on the tabletop determine results, not gotcha moments.


While I think many players understand that the game is big, and a quick rundown of what your army does is useful, I think that expecting that is probably optimistic, especially in a tournament setting.

My Painted Armies
: Co. B, 37th Praetorian IG: 21,000pts
KOW Ogres: 4500 points
Loyalist Emperor's Children: 2500 points 
   
Made in ca
Pestilent Plague Marine with Blight Grenade





The Frozen North

 Mulletdude wrote:
All this talk about information in 40k being 'open' is disingenuous at best. For a single army I could end up using 5 books to pull rules/models from. Every one of those books is behind a GW paywall where you can't read the rules if you don't own the book. Are we just assuming that every tournament player has every publication that GW has published and has read all the rules on the units and stratagems in all those publications?

I would expect my opponent to be forthcoming at the start of the game as to which stratagems are available to his army in a general sense. Example: "I can use a stratagem to allow my Sanguinary Guard to Intervene 6", "I have a stratagem to shoot a Slannesh Infantry units weapons twice", etc. I wouldn't expect them to tell me at the beginning of the game that "This strat will be used on these terminators to shoot twice", but just the general text. Gotcha moments are terrible for all involved and should be avoided at all costs. Let the skill of the players on the tabletop determine results, not gotcha moments.
That must be a very tedious amount of pre-game discussion.

Triggerbaby wrote:In summary, here's your lunch and ask Miss Creaver if she has aloe lotion because I have taken you to school and you have been burned.

Abadabadoobaddon wrote:I too can prove pretty much any assertion I please if I don't count all the evidence that contradicts it.
 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




 MinMax wrote:
 Mulletdude wrote:
All this talk about information in 40k being 'open' is disingenuous at best. For a single army I could end up using 5 books to pull rules/models from. Every one of those books is behind a GW paywall where you can't read the rules if you don't own the book. Are we just assuming that every tournament player has every publication that GW has published and has read all the rules on the units and stratagems in all those publications?

I would expect my opponent to be forthcoming at the start of the game as to which stratagems are available to his army in a general sense. Example: "I can use a stratagem to allow my Sanguinary Guard to Intervene 6", "I have a stratagem to shoot a Slannesh Infantry units weapons twice", etc. I wouldn't expect them to tell me at the beginning of the game that "This strat will be used on these terminators to shoot twice", but just the general text. Gotcha moments are terrible for all involved and should be avoided at all costs. Let the skill of the players on the tabletop determine results, not gotcha moments.
That must be a very tedious amount of pre-game discussion.


Yeah. It could also lead to a different type of gotcha if you forget about a certain stratagem during all this explanation, or end up using a less common stratagem because this so happens to be the 1 game in 100 where it proves useful. Sadly, the way 40k is currently designed, you'll end up with these sort of things happening every now and then because it's just not feasible to go through every last rules/stratagem interaction pre-game.
   
Made in fi
Ye Lord of The End Times (and a good guy)





 solkan wrote:

What's the difference between a tournament and a regular game then?

Edit: Noting that:
A. You're having this argument on a forum on the internet where there are discussions of tactics.
B. If you were sufficiently motivated, you could go find a tactica for the other faction and get your own summary of their available stratagems.



You have multiple games in a day. That's all.

You don't have delusions about there existing competive 40k or something silly esport style? GW games are unsuitable for that. You have better luck doing competive SLEEPING event than competive GW game event.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 MinMax wrote:
 Mulletdude wrote:
All this talk about information in 40k being 'open' is disingenuous at best. For a single army I could end up using 5 books to pull rules/models from. Every one of those books is behind a GW paywall where you can't read the rules if you don't own the book. Are we just assuming that every tournament player has every publication that GW has published and has read all the rules on the units and stratagems in all those publications?

I would expect my opponent to be forthcoming at the start of the game as to which stratagems are available to his army in a general sense. Example: "I can use a stratagem to allow my Sanguinary Guard to Intervene 6", "I have a stratagem to shoot a Slannesh Infantry units weapons twice", etc. I wouldn't expect them to tell me at the beginning of the game that "This strat will be used on these terminators to shoot twice", but just the general text. Gotcha moments are terrible for all involved and should be avoided at all costs. Let the skill of the players on the tabletop determine results, not gotcha moments.
That must be a very tedious amount of pre-game discussion.


Oh really? 99.99% players are smart enough to know what parts of your army are likely going to cause gotchas. Particularly after asking has opponent faced your army before. It doesn't take that much brainpower.

Remaining 0.01% have no place to play outside their home anyway.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/04/08 06:16:29


2021 painted/bought: 538/575 
   
Made in us
Deathwing Terminator with Assault Cannon





I don't see why refusing to teach your opponent would be considered cheating.

Now, lying about what a certain ability does would be cheating.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Whether you're in a tournament or not, you should aim never to have an interaction determined by your opponent's lack of knowledge of your army's rules. When that does happen, the proper thing to do is to allow them to undo whatever action they had taken that was predicated upon that lack of knowledge, if it doesn't require significant undoing of the board state. I.e. to take that prior example, if you spend 1cp to give something a -1 to be hit and your opponent didn't know you had that strat and they say they would have targeted something else instead in that case, just let them do it (and don't spend the CP yourself, obviously), it's no skin off your back and makes for a more enjoyable game.

This is a game with rules spread across dozens of books, each of which costs a large amount of money. You can't expect people to be aware of every rule every army has, and you should consider it your job as the player of said army to make sure your opponent isn't ambushed by your rules. The easiest way to do that is to tell your opponent upfront about any rules you have that are likely to surprise them. That way you put it on them, not on you. If you fail to do that, and then you end up ambushing them, benefiting from that ambush becomes bad sportsmanship.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut







So just how much time in the schedule are allotting for each of the players to be teaching their fellows about their armies?

Because, to be frank, the inevitable "You didn't mention that!" complaint goes through select highlights (because you do have a schedule to keep), and then something comes up in the game is what makes the situation untenable. There's a reason why the Privateer Press tournament guidelines ended up being "Give the other player all of your cards, you're not obligated to explain how they work." See also "If someone asks you what the threat range of your model is, stab them. Being arrested for assault or murder is less suffering for everyone."



Because frankly it's a huge amount of presumption that you deserve to be educated by the other player in the style of your choosing.
   
 
Forum Index » Tournament Discussions
Go to: