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.

Wayniac wrote:
cutthroat WAAC/rules lawyers type of players (which Peregrine seems to be, or at least acts like one

So, "don't list tailor, it's WAAC behavior and can ruin the game" means I'm a cutthroat WAAC/rules lawyer type. Makes sense to me...

Martel732 wrote:
Why should you drop your vendetta? Your opponent chose not to bring anti-air. Exploit that.

I have one ik in one of my 1850 lists. I might use that list without warning.It doesn't matter if my opponent is okay with it or not. I don't have to disclose i even own iks.

Admittedly, the degree to which I tone down my list, if at all, has to do with my opponent, if I know who that is. If I know they like to bring strong lists, I won't be at all concerned about bringing a strong list. However, if I'm playing against an inexperienced 14 y/o with a limited selection of SM infantry and very few vehicles, why not go out of my way to make the game more balanced? The last thing I ever want to do is win too frequently and by such margins in casual games that people lose interest in the game. I'll add more challenge to my army once he actually has a Rhino or two, a Vindicator, etc.


Unless something is explicitly competitive or store credit is involved (or if I lose), I often suffer from profound winner's guilt, in case you couldn't tell.

 IllumiNini wrote:


Fair call, but as I said: They consented to a game with me and my friend knowing full well what our views and House Rules were. I don't know how you (or others) would treat that, but personally I treat that as an agreement by default to the House Rules that we set out in the same way that we agreed to any House Rules by default that he has set out for the games that he plays. If the IG player didn't agree with the House Rules, why would they accept a game with us? Why would he not try to come to a new agreement whereby he found the House Rules more agreeable?

Consent to a game is not consent to the peculiarities of the opponent, unless you also agree to the peculiarities of the opponent.

Consent to a game, without explicit agreement otherwise, is consent to the default rules of the game. It should take AFFIRMATIVE assent (In this instance, the IG player saying "I accept your House Rules" rather than mere silence) for the consent to a game to extend to consent of those peculiarities.

That's because this game starts with presumptions that game-legal choices are legal by default. You're taking your House Rules as a default that the IG player has to explicitly deny, when the opposite is true - if you want your House Rules to apply, you absolutely must get affirmative assent that the House Rules will apply.

The IG player's behavior should make it clear that whatever your presumption, HE DOESN'T CONSENT. Your presumptions are NOT working, so you're getting some good advice - ask for his consent, and if he doesn't give you consent, don't play him.

This thread should be a pretty clear marker that your conception of presumptions is not a particularly universal one. But that really doesn't matter - you play with your friends, including the IG player. It is the IG player you need to be talking to, and getting consent to your House Rules, because your current method is explicitly, undeniably NOT WORKING when it comes to the IG player.

Instead of looking to universal forums for validation (which you're clearly not getting), just bite the bullet and talk to the IG player. The relationship between you and him is where the friction in your scenario is coming from, so that's where it will be fixed. Your "silence as consent" presumption isn't working - change it to explicit, assertive agreement as consent. If the IG player still violates the rules, STOP PLAYING WITH HIM, or accept that when you play HIM, you're consenting to the default rules.

 Peregrine wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
cutthroat WAAC/rules lawyers type of players (which Peregrine seems to be, or at least acts like one

So, "don't list tailor, it's WAAC behavior and can ruin the game" means I'm a cutthroat WAAC/rules lawyer type. Makes sense to me...

I disagree with about 99% of what he says but peregrine is right 100% here.

If the rules say you can do it you can. If you want to special snow flake rules then tell people before hand. I don't like playing vs that because I can't deal with it.

 KommissarKiln wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Why should you drop your vendetta? Your opponent chose not to bring anti-air. Exploit that.

I have one ik in one of my 1850 lists. I might use that list without warning.It doesn't matter if my opponent is okay with it or not. I don't have to disclose i even own iks.

Admittedly, the degree to which I tone down my list, if at all, has to do with my opponent, if I know who that is. If I know they like to bring strong lists, I won't be at all concerned about bringing a strong list. However, if I'm playing against an inexperienced 14 y/o with a limited selection of SM infantry and very few vehicles, why not go out of my way to make the game more balanced? The last thing I ever want to do is win too frequently and by such margins in casual games that people lose interest in the game. I'll add more challenge to my army once he actually has a Rhino or two, a Vindicator, etc.


Unless something is explicitly competitive or store credit is involved (or if I lose), I often suffer from profound winner's guilt, in case you couldn't tell.

Or show them the flyer on the table and give them suggestions as to what they can do to counter flyers without any AA of their own. Three lascannons and six airborne guardsmen are not going to ruin someone's game. If you really want to make it easier for them, you can hover it to show them the hover mechanic.

You make some very fair points, Martel. Of course, there was that time 5 airborne guardsmen with a couple flamers singlehandedly secured 4 VP in one turn... Let's call that game an anomaly.

I digress; I just remembered that the kid whom I was referring to bought a secondhand Storm Talon a day or two ago, so it's all water under the bridge.

Just last game my opponent had three "secure obj 4" cards at once and scored three points with a single deffkopta. It happens. Bottom line is that with the new pricing, the Vendetta is completely fair, and maybe a tinch overcosted, but in a GW game, that's basically as close as it gets.

Like all flying vehicles it usually gets two turns to fire before it has to enter ongoing reserves or hover. FMCs are far more efficient. Big shock.

Also, one of the best ways to learn what something does is to get crushed by it once. I'll never forget what boarding planks do again

 Unusual Suspect wrote:

 IllumiNini wrote:


Fair call, but as I said: They consented to a game with me and my friend knowing full well what our views and House Rules were. I don't know how you (or others) would treat that, but personally I treat that as an agreement by default to the House Rules that we set out in the same way that we agreed to any House Rules by default that he has set out for the games that he plays. If the IG player didn't agree with the House Rules, why would they accept a game with us? Why would he not try to come to a new agreement whereby he found the House Rules more agreeable?

Consent to a game is not consent to the peculiarities of the opponent, unless you also agree to the peculiarities of the opponent.

Consent to a game, without explicit agreement otherwise, is consent to the default rules of the game. It should take AFFIRMATIVE assent (In this instance, the IG player saying "I accept your House Rules" rather than mere silence) for the consent to a game to extend to consent of those peculiarities.

That's because this game starts with presumptions that game-legal choices are legal by default. You're taking your House Rules as a default that the IG player has to explicitly deny, when the opposite is true - if you want your House Rules to apply, you absolutely must get affirmative assent that the House Rules will apply.

The IG player's behavior should make it clear that whatever your presumption, HE DOESN'T CONSENT. Your presumptions are NOT working, so you're getting some good advice - ask for his consent, and if he doesn't give you consent, don't play him.

This thread should be a pretty clear marker that your conception of presumptions is not a particularly universal one. But that really doesn't matter - you play with your friends, including the IG player. It is the IG player you need to be talking to, and getting consent to your House Rules, because your current method is explicitly, undeniably NOT WORKING when it comes to the IG player.

Instead of looking to universal forums for validation (which you're clearly not getting), just bite the bullet and talk to the IG player. The relationship between you and him is where the friction in your scenario is coming from, so that's where it will be fixed. Your "silence as consent" presumption isn't working - change it to explicit, assertive agreement as consent. If the IG player still violates the rules, STOP PLAYING WITH HIM, or accept that when you play HIM, you're consenting to the default rules.

*spams exalt button*

If you didn't ask explicitly first, and he didn't explicitly agree to your rules, don't complain when he doesn't follow them.

Martel732 wrote:
Just last game my opponent had three "secure obj 4" cards at once and scored three points with a single deffkopta. It happens. Bottom line is that with the new pricing, the Vendetta is completely fair, and maybe a tinch overcosted, but in a GW game, that's basically as close as it gets.

Like all flying vehicles it usually gets two turns to fire before it has to enter ongoing reserves or hover. FMCs are far more efficient. Big shock.

Also, one of the best ways to learn what something does is to get crushed by it once. I'll never forget what boarding planks do again

Thought you couldn't complete the same objective more than once?

Oh, is that a rule in the base game? Never thought to look it up.

Martel732 wrote:
Oh, is that a rule in the base game? Never thought to look it up.

Well it depends.

If you're rolling dice there are legal ways to get it multiple times, because they're distinct rolls (IE: 12, 22, capture objective 2). If the cards don't specify you should discard and draw another, because you can't roll 22 multiple times and get that objective.

We were drawing cards.

About half of a tactical objectives deck is "Secure Objective X," with at least 3 cards per objective. They're even labelled 12, 22, 32, it's Secure Objective 2, on three different cards.

 KommissarKiln wrote:
About half of a tactical objectives deck is "Secure Objective X," with at least 3 cards per objective. They're even labelled 12, 22, 32, it's Secure Objective 2, on three different cards.

I didn't know they were labeled with the dice rolls. I bought some recently, i haven't had a chance to use them yet though.

To me, Warhammer 40k is not a hidden information game. Deceiving your opponent about what your army is made of is not a valid part of the game to me.

 Pouncey wrote:
To me, Warhammer 40k is not a hidden information game. Deceiving your opponent about what your army is made of is not a valid part of the game to me.

I knew there was a reason we exchanged lists at the start of the game.

But why don't the lists get photocopied and distributed at the start of the tournament? Why wait until you're looking your opponent in the eye?

 Pouncey wrote:
To me, Warhammer 40k is not a hidden information game. Deceiving your opponent about what your army is made of is not a valid part of the game to me.

Deceiving is quite a loaded word, and doesn't apply to pretty much any of the situations described. If you had a pre-arranged game and you both disclosed, let's say at least codexes, and person a says "Oh yeah I'll play nids," then turns up with tau, they've deceived person b. If an imperial guard player takes a baneblade variant, that's definitely not deceiving. Nor is playing pick up games with a list you've brought down to the store on some kinda games day where no one knows the other lists in advance. Is that 'hidden information' or 'deceiving'?
To me that's just playing the game, not an invalid way of playing just because it's not pre-organised. Do you only play pre-organised games? If so, I'd say you're missing out on a fun way of playing 40k. (I'm not saying pre-organised games aren't fun, I'm saying be more open minded to 'hidden information', as you call it.)

 Dakka Wolf wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:
To me, Warhammer 40k is not a hidden information game. Deceiving your opponent about what your army is made of is not a valid part of the game to me.

I knew there was a reason we exchanged lists at the start of the game.

But why don't the lists get photocopied and distributed at the start of the tournament? Why wait until you're looking your opponent in the eye?

:: shrug :: I'm not really a tournament person. Too much of a competitive atmosphere, it attracts people who value victory above all else, and I don't really like those kinds of people because their emphasis on winning a game means they'll try to get away with things if I don't notice. Like, if I'm forgetting a USR one of my units has, and it's to their benefit if I don't remember it, and they notice, they won't remind me because they figure I deserve to play with an underpowered army if I can't remember all its rules.

Personally, I go to great lengths to explain my army to my opponent. I explain every unit in my army, what they're good at, what they're armed with, etc. If she's doing something I think is weird, I'll speak up, explain why I think it's weird, because a strategy game is more fun when everyone makes informed decisions.

Showing your list to your opponent before the game is the point at which total disclosure occurs.

Anything up to that point, is "non-game", so can't be ruled upon. Maybe he was going to play pure IG, then changed his mind before the game started and included a Knight. We can't know that. Further, if you misinform your opponent about your expected codex so that they tailor towards a different duck, then the fault is their's, not the player that was misleading. List tailoring is generally a bad thing, in my opinion, but I'm a relic from the TAC days that kind of don't really work anymore.

Anyhow.

It's been said above, but if a group doesn't want to play "out of the book" it is on the group to formally express this to anyone wishing to play in that group. Nothing wrong with house rules, we even have a couple in my group [no more than one super-heavy at 1500 points, without warning. No more than 2 at 1850 points, without warning] but they're agreed to by all parties, because we agreed that games weren't fun otherwise. That's the only rule we've ever implemented though. Everything else if fair game.

So explain to everyone the "rules" you wish to play by. We all sat down around a table, and discussed it, and came to a decision as a group. Do the same. But not immediately before or after a game. Set the time as an appointment specifically not game time. Write it down, put it in a binder, and then anyone new can read it and get what's going on without any surprises.

We only have the one house rule, so we never wrote it down... but if there were more we would.

Also, and I know this is just a really personal thing so I don't ask anyone to agree, but I think any and all imperial forces should be able to fight together in a list. They do it in the fluff.

I only ask or care while we're face to face setting up. The points limit took care of everything either of us needed to know prior to that.

I also always provide a copy of my list whether asked for or not. If my oppone t does not do the same, I usually ask a lot of questions during setup to familiarize myself as we go. I have no issue with answering any questions my opponent may have about my army as well.

 CREEEEEEEEED wrote:
Also, and I know this is just a really personal thing so I don't ask anyone to agree, but I think any and all imperial forces should be able to fight together in a list. They do it in the fluff.

They already can.

All Imperial factions are Battle Brothers with each other.

Unbound is a thing.

You can't be upset because someone didn't tell you what they're bringing so that you can prepare: this is war! You might have a vage idea of what your facing (if your intel is on the level ) but that's it.

When I play any game I couldn't give a toss what my opponant takes as long as I get to play the army I want to. Even when I play doubles games, my teamate might ask for a little help in a certain area and I'll try to accomodate them but mostly I just take what I find fun to take.

If your opponant brought a super heavy and you didn't know about it you should take the oppertunity to, as GW likes to say, "forge the narrative" and act like a real field commander coming up with tactics on the fly. Alternatively, laugh like a maniac and charge everything you have at the SH and watch all your forces die in a glorious apocalyptic explosion, HAHAHAHAHA!!

 Pouncey wrote:

 CREEEEEEEEED wrote:
Also, and I know this is just a really personal thing so I don't ask anyone to agree, but I think any and all imperial forces should be able to fight together in a list. They do it in the fluff.

They already can.

All Imperial factions are Battle Brothers with each other.

Unbound is a thing.

The original post was complaining about an imperial guard player taking a superheavy tank From another codex/supplement. So if it wasn't clear, that's just me reiterating that I wouldn't have a problem with it.

 Pouncey wrote:

 Dakka Wolf wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:
To me, Warhammer 40k is not a hidden information game. Deceiving your opponent about what your army is made of is not a valid part of the game to me.

I knew there was a reason we exchanged lists at the start of the game.

But why don't the lists get photocopied and distributed at the start of the tournament? Why wait until you're looking your opponent in the eye?

:: shrug :: I'm not really a tournament person. Too much of a competitive atmosphere, it attracts people who value victory above all else, and I don't really like those kinds of people because their emphasis on winning a game means they'll try to get away with things if I don't notice. Like, if I'm forgetting a USR one of my units has, and it's to their benefit if I don't remember it, and they notice, they won't remind me because they figure I deserve to play with an underpowered army if I can't remember all its rules.

Personally, I go to great lengths to explain my army to my opponent. I explain every unit in my army, what they're good at, what they're armed with, etc. If she's doing something I think is weird, I'll speak up, explain why I think it's weird, because a strategy game is more fun when everyone makes informed decisions.

Meh, I'll do that in a tournament. Too much time spent introducing newbies to the game - I point out missed things on reflex.

But on a serious note you do hand over lists just before setting up. Gives you the opportunity to study your opponent's stuff as they unpack and deploy. Assuming you can recognize models - had an opponent drop a White Scars army, looked brilliant until I made the mistake of multi-charging it. Nobody could keep track of what bikes belonged to which unit.

 CREEEEEEEEED wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

 CREEEEEEEEED wrote:
Also, and I know this is just a really personal thing so I don't ask anyone to agree, but I think any and all imperial forces should be able to fight together in a list. They do it in the fluff.

They already can.

All Imperial factions are Battle Brothers with each other.

Unbound is a thing.

The original post was complaining about an imperial guard player taking a superheavy tank From another codex/supplement. So if it wasn't clear, that's just me reiterating that I wouldn't have a problem with it.

Ahh, okay.

Thanks for explaining. : D

Is it part of the army? (as in, baneblade/variant in ig list, heiroduel in a nids list) If so, then yeah 100% allow, as it's part of the army. titan level stuff you should always ask first, but regular SHV should be fine.

 cosmicsoybean wrote:
Is it part of the army? (as in, baneblade/variant in ig list, heiroduel in a nids list) If so, then yeah 100% allow, as it's part of the army. titan level stuff you should always ask first, but regular SHV should be fine.

Huh.

It just occurred to me that my army doesn't actually have any Lords of War.

 Pouncey wrote:
Huh.

It just occurred to me that my army doesn't actually have any Lords of War.

You play sisters right? Going off what's been said, all imperial super heavies are available.

 CREEEEEEEEED wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:
Huh.

It just occurred to me that my army doesn't actually have any Lords of War.

You play sisters right? Going off what's been said, all imperial super heavies are available.

Yeah, I saw them on Battlescribe.

But none of them are from my army. They're just ones we're allowed to borrow from other factions to fill the slot because we're an Imperial army.