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.

olympia wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:It seems to me that the whole point of playing a wargame is to manoeuvre your units into positions from which they can attack the enemy or be safe from enemy attack.

Why would people not want to do that?

People certainly can try to gain every advantage possible in a wargame, even if that means attempting to combine processes from the shooting phase (determining cover saves) with processes from the movement phase (moving and placing your models). Whether or not your opponent lets you get away with this is another question.

I don't understand why you are against it.

I don't see why it is something that "people must be prevented from getting away with".

You don't understand why someone might be against combining the movement phase with parts of the shooting phase? Why would you or anyone think this is acceptable? The mind boggles.

olympia wrote:You don't understand why someone might be against combining the movement phase with parts of the shooting phase? Why would you or anyone think this is acceptable? The mind boggles.

What combining is going on?

You move your models and as you do so you look at the table to determine if they are in LoS and what cover saves they might be granting.

No-one is suggesting that the final determination does not take place as the unit shoots.

Scott-S6 wrote:

No-one is suggesting that the final determination does not take place as the unit shoots.

That is exactly what many people in this thread are suggesting!

Oppononet moves his Leman Russ.
O: "Can you have a look? It has perfectly clear view of your boyz, right?"
You: "I don't think so, half is in cover from that forest"
Opponent moves his Leman Russ some more.
O: "Now?"
You: "Still not it."
Opponent moves Leman Russ even further.
O: "Now?"
You: "Yeah, clear shot now."

This is what you have a problem with?

Yet, someone positioning the model and then walking around the table to check, walking back, adjusting it, walking back around the table to check, etc is perfectly legal.

Why do you have a problem with asking your opponent to assist? The final determination is still happening when the model shoots.

olympia wrote:You don't understand why someone might be against combining the movement phase with parts of the shooting phase? Why would you or anyone think this is acceptable? The mind boggles.

I don't understand why it is such a big deal to you. I don't see how it makes the game worse, or unfair. I see several ways in which the game is made better. If the game is better, and not worse, why would anyone be against it?

olympia wrote:However, the insidious behavior I describe in the OP is making declarative statements about the shooting status of a unit in the movement phase (e.g., "I moved my leman russ here and it has an unobstructed view of your looted wagon") and thereby forcing your opponent to object at that time or face the consequences in the shooting phase.

What consequences, exactly?

Exactly. Like I said: In my opinion, the game should be won or lost based on the skill of a player, their ability to choose targets and employ a strategy, to eyeball distances and their dice rolls they make, not on an argument over cover or LoS.

All this does is avoid stupid arguments over whether someone has cover or can see to shoot. The "oh, well if I'd known that, I wouldn't have done this," situation, if you will.

I get what both sides are getting at and I agree with both to some degree.

Scott asked "what consequences"?..

In a game, I am not going to help my opponent beat me. He can look at a models positioning, check LOS, etc etc and I have no problem with that. What I will not do, is correct his misplacement for him in the movement phase to give him an advantage in the shooting phase or take away an advantage in mine. It is not my job to hand-hold my opponents. He places his models and then when the appropriate phase comes around, we deal with what is actually in cover and what isn't. Regardless of what your intention as a player "was"..

for example..

"I want to move my tank where it can get an unobstructed view of your ork boyz"

It is up to myself as a player to decide if i have good model placement or not, regardless of what my "intention" was. It is not up to my opponent to guide my movement to perfect placement for the turn. If i place a model in a not-so-perfect location, then that is on me. I expect this from my opponent as well. If you only manage to place your tank with 10% cover, it is not my job to correct your placement when asked during the movement phase. During the shooting phase, I will gladly check for you. I don't agree with the OP's possibility of giving false info, however, and I would simply abstain from giving my opponent and advice at all. I agree that might detract from the social courtesy in some people's eyes but I for one don't just play to be social..I like the competitive side. If I just wanted to be social we could hit the bar and have some drinks for way cheaper than the hundreds of dollars my opponent and I have spent to play. This doesn't mean I am a jerk to play, I'm actually quite friendly and I joke alot. But you do your thing when playing and Ill do mine. Not everyone plays the game for the social aspect, nor the painting/modeling side, nor even the competitive side..keep this in mind.

So in a nutshell, i think many are reading the OP's objection wrong. He is not against people checking LOS, moving to the other side of the table, etc. He is objecting to opponents who expect the man on the other side of the table to help them win through permissives that may not exist and you won't know for sure until the shooting phase.

olympia wrote:There is no statement of intent in the movement phase. You move and then accept the consequences in your shooting phase. To do otherwise is illegal. What if the opponent says, "doesn't look clear to me"--does the player then keep adjusting his movement, or does he start an argument about cover saves in the movement phase? Either way it stinks.

It's neither cheating, nor does your opponent have to cooperate. Heaven forbid that something is done in normal conversation, like normal people.

Prophaniti wrote:In a game, I am not going to help my opponent beat me. He can look at a models positioning, check LOS, etc etc and I have no problem with that. What I will not do, is correct his misplacement for him in the movement phase to give him an advantage in the shooting phase or take away an advantage in mine. It is not my job to hand-hold my opponents.

So if your opponent asks you - "can that lascannon see your tank?" to save a trip around the table your response is "not my problem"?

Scott-S6 wrote:

Prophaniti wrote:In a game, I am not going to help my opponent beat me. He can look at a models positioning, check LOS, etc etc and I have no problem with that. What I will not do, is correct his misplacement for him in the movement phase to give him an advantage in the shooting phase or take away an advantage in mine. It is not my job to hand-hold my opponents.

So if your opponent asks you - "can that lascannon see your tank?" to save a trip around the table your response is "not my problem"?

In a nut shell yes

Scott-S6 wrote:
So if your opponent asks you - "can that lascannon see your tank?" to save a trip around the table your response is "not my problem"?

No, that would be rude..my response would be "we shall see in the shooting phase".

I'm assuming for the purposes of this argument that we are not talking GTs where the tables are aisles 100ft long. My opponent is more than welcome to move around the table as he sees fit, but if he cannot make the decision as to whether he has LOS, I'm certainly not going to help him with his movement, but I'm fair in that I do not expect anything more from him during my turn either. The competitive play scene expects you to be able to play the game AND do so in a time frame. It is not my job as an opponent to speed your turn up for you and/or help you position your models for maximum effect.

Again, also remember that I am speaking from a purely competitive POV here. I am not talking about friendly pick-up games or what not. In a tourney, this is how I play. In a screw off pick up game, I could care less...Once you involve money, it all changes

Prophaniti wrote:It is not my job as an opponent to speed your turn up for you

That's an interesting comment given that a certain amount of cooperation is required for fast play.

I would obnoxiously crawl under the table every single time to get to the other side if my opponent did not want to give me a hand and lend me their eyes. I might even pretend to take an elevator down each time as well, or make mario sounds.

Tri wrote:I think people are getting the wrong idea ...

Yes it is OK to look at your unit a tweak it so it will get a good shoot.

No it is not OK to actually check that it is a good shot (by actually checking LOS).

A fine line maybe but its easy to see its being crossed when you're asked 'do they have a shot? how about now'. Its much the same as pre-measuring shooting.

Since I'm the subject of debate here, what actually happens is this.

1. I mark a unit's starting position with dice.

2. I move the unit where I want it to be, pivot to face what I'm going to fire at. If I think I have a *CLEAR* shot and that no cover save will be allowed, I say to my opponent "Looks like a clear shot from here. You agree?"

3. Generally, my opponent agrees. Because it is.

4. If my opponent DISAGREES....and we were in the shooting phase, we'd have an argument. I think I have 51%+ LOS. Generally, this is where I have 75%+ LOS. We'd have to call over a judge to bend over our models and make a determination.

5. If my opponent disagrees, I move back to my starting point, and go somewhere else. It isn't worth the argument with an opponent over whether something is getting cover or not.

So...one of two things could happen.

1. I move where I want, line up shots as I want without consulting my opponents. During shooting, if they disagree with my assessments of cover availability, I will brow-beat them, Laser pointer them, and call over judges to override their opinions because I *know* exactly what kind of LOS I have.

2. I get my opponent's opinion during movement and avoid situation #1.

#1 is going to result in a tense game. With hurt feelings. I don't move units and finish positioning them without knowing exactly what kind of LOS they have to the target that they're going to shoot at. I'm perfectly capable of walking all over an opponent, getting a judge to intercede, and then zeroing their sportsmanship for wasting 10 minutes of my turn to debate whether they had cover or not when I *KNEW* that they didn't have cover. I prefer not to play that way. So do pretty much all tournament players.

I'm not worried about it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Prophaniti wrote:

Scott-S6 wrote:
So if your opponent asks you - "can that lascannon see your tank?" to save a trip around the table your response is "not my problem"?

No, that would be rude..my response would be "we shall see in the shooting phase".

Then an extra 3-5 minutes are going to be invested in me walking around the table - and if this is a tournament there are probably 4-5 tables lined up in a row, meaning I need to walk down to the other end of the building to get AROUND the row, and back on down to our table on your side. Then I'm going to get down and eyeball it myself to see. Then I'm going to walk back down to the other end of the building, back around the row of tables to get back to my side.

And in the meantime, you'll have earned a "zero" for sportsmanship for .....well, being a dick.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Scott-S6 wrote:Oppononet moves his Leman Russ.
O: "Can you have a look? It has perfectly clear view of your boyz, right?"
You: "I don't think so, half is in cover from that forest"
Opponent moves his Leman Russ some more.
O: "Now?"
You: "Still not it."
Opponent moves Leman Russ even further.
O: "Now?"
You: "Yeah, clear shot now."

This is what you have a problem with?

Yet, someone positioning the model and then walking around the table to check, walking back, adjusting it, walking back around the table to check, etc is perfectly legal.

Why do you have a problem with asking your opponent to assist? The final determination is still happening when the model shoots.

+1

Dashofpepper wrote: you'll have earned a "zero" for sportsmanship for .....well, being a dick.

Kind of sad behavior and language from a fellow poster...so much for civility..you kiss your mom with that mouth?

Dashofpepper wrote:

1. I mark a unit's starting position with dice.

2. I move the unit where I want it to be, pivot to face what I'm going to fire at. If I think I have a *CLEAR* shot and that no cover save will be allowed, I say to my opponent "Looks like a clear shot from here. You agree?"

the correct response from your opponent in a competitive environment is, "We'll see in the shooting phase!"

think about it like another turn based game: chess. you don't make 'practice moves' to see what combinations are available if you move your bishop to b5, and say 'hmm, think i can pin your knight at c6?' and if not, move it back.

you calculate your move, make it, and take your chances. you make the move you think will be optimal, but you don't get to find out if your move was optimal until the shooting phase.

by that token, i don't have a problem with an opponent checking los from where they think their models will be, before they move them, but i would object to an opponent making 'ghost moves' and moving them somewhere else if they don't like what the ghost move says.

Your final comment is actually against the rules.

You are *entirely* within your rights to move a model (or models in a unit) and the decide to move them to a different place, as long as you are still only moving that one unit.

I had always thought that all movement is *final* at the conclusion of said movement.

If you measure 6", and move your Predator 6", and ask your opponent if you have a clear shot and he disagrees.... aren't you SOL? I thought the rule was, "If you measure, it's final".

Correct me if I'm wrong though.

You're wrong, read the movement rules.

You can move and, if you you decide you dont like it, move it somewhere else.

What you cannot do is move it, move another unit, and then try to moev the original unit again.

Prophaniti wrote:

Dashofpepper wrote: you'll have earned a "zero" for sportsmanship for .....well, being a dick.

Kind of sad behavior and language from a fellow poster...so much for civility..you kiss your mom with that mouth?

If that kind of writing upsets you then I have this small padded room you can stay in. You'll be completely free from society and conversing with anybody else but yourself.

I haven no problem with this, because I understand the purpose, which is to avoid rules disputes in the shooting phase. People will be more reasonable and less biased when their models aren't being immediately threatened.

AFAIK, there's no rule that prevents you from consulting with your opponent, just as there is no rule that forces you to oblige him in this situation either. I would say that if an opponent of mine continually said "I don't know, we'll see", that would make our games less enjoyable and a bit more tense, not to mention leave room for potential disputes over the 50% cover.

nosferatu1001 wrote:You're wrong, read the movement rules.

You can move and, if you you decide you dont like it, move it somewhere else.

What you cannot do is move it, move another unit, and then try to moev the original unit again.

thanks for clarifying. i didnt know this

Griever wrote:

If that kind of writing upsets you then I have this small padded room you can stay in. You'll be completely free from society and conversing with anybody else but yourself.

I guess i was more shocked that someone with almost 7k posts here still hasn't read rule #1 of the posting rules for the Dakka forums...sad it was reduced to name calling in an otherwise civil debate back and forth..:(

Prophaniti wrote:
I guess i was more shocked that someone with almost 7k posts here still hasn't read rule #1 of the posting rules for the Dakka forums...sad it was reduced to name calling in an otherwise civil debate back and forth..:(

Maybe reread that post again, he did not call you a name. He said if someone makes him run back and forth around the table for every unit he qualifies that as 'being a dick' which means a 0 for sportsmanship.

Thanks for the clarification, Nos.

Griever wrote:If that kind of writing upsets you then I have this small padded room you can stay in. You'll be completely free from society and conversing with anybody else but yourself.

I haven no problem with this, because I understand the purpose, which is to avoid rules disputes in the shooting phase. People will be more reasonable and less biased when their models aren't being immediately threatened.

AFAIK, there's no rule that prevents you from consulting with your opponent, just as there is no rule that forces you to oblige him in this situation either. I would say that if an opponent of mine continually said "I don't know, we'll see", that would make our games less enjoyable and a bit more tense, not to mention leave room for potential disputes over the 50% cover.

I really disagree with this. If you opponent answers "we'll see in the shooting phase" and then goes on to makes a big deal out of every cover save, that's one thing. If he keeps answering "we'll see in the shooting phase" and then basically nods off most of your shooting, there is no reason to mark him down on sportsmanship. Even if this is not common procedure, you can't really blame them for not wanting to help you position your models perfectly(50.1% cover) every time. You can blame them not checking LoS when it would not make any difference to their own shooting, however. There is no reason not to help your opponent position his Leman Russ, if it is in plain sight of your anti-tank weapons anyway.
Bottom line: Use your common sense, if you have none, flip a coin.

I would obnoxiously crawl under the table every single time to get to the other side if my opponent did not want to give me a hand and lend me their eyes. I might even pretend to take an elevator down each time as well, or make mario sounds.

Probably best advice on the thread. Once you did the elevator twice to check LoS on their table side, only a really thick-headed people will continue their behavior. Making locomotive sounds while going around the tables would work, too.

While I doubt at this stage I'm going to sway any opinions I would just like to point out ...
Page 9 Game Turn And Player turn
"In a complete game turn, both players get a player turn, each on divided into Movement, Shooting and Assault phases (see Turn Sequence, bellow). Exactly what is going to happen in each phase is describe in the following sections of this book"
At no point is checking LOS called for before shooting ... yes you can eyeball it, same as with ranges, but nothing requires an agreement on LOS till the shooting phase.

Prophaniti wrote:

Dashofpepper wrote: you'll have earned a "zero" for sportsmanship for .....well, being a dick.

Kind of sad behavior and language from a fellow poster...so much for civility..you kiss your mom with that mouth?

As a poster below you pointed out, you may be having a problem with word association. I'd encourage you to re-read what I wrote - you don't seem to have understood what I wrote.

To the chess analogy: Its terrible. When you move a chess piece up, its next actions are set and undebateable. Your opponent isn't going to debate whether your Queen can actually move and attack to a legal position on the board.

There's a better chess anology. In chess, you can move a piece. You can move it, move it back, do anything you like to it until you take your finger off the piece - then its final. 40k is the same.

Prophaniti wrote:It is not my job to hand-hold my opponents.

it is not my job to correct your placement when asked during the movement phase

It is not my job as an opponent to speed your turn up for you and/or help you position your models for maximum effect.

These may all be technically true, but they don't really seem like great guidelines to having a pleasant and fun game.