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
Deathwing Terminator with Assault Cannon





No, my issue is this discussion vilifying people by generalizing the circumstances and citing nonexistent unspoken law/code of conduct.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




I'm sorry you feel vilified.

I'm just glad we could clear up that refusing to answer your opponent's questions about your rules because you consider them insufficiently specific is not acceptable tournament behavior.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/04/20 23:42:06


 
   
Made in gb
Sister Oh-So Repentia




United Kingdom

 alextroy wrote:


It's not like anyone ran mono-Slaanesh before 9th Edition


Yep, no one would have ever been so unfortunate as to sell their mono-slaanesh daemons before 9th hit because of money reasons.

Spoiler:





   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




yukishiro1 wrote:
I'm sorry you feel vilified.

I'm just glad we could clear up that refusing to answer your opponent's questions about your rules because you consider them insufficiently specific is not acceptable tournament behavior.


I've also never heard of this unwritten rule you keep going on about. I think the disagreement here is over how specific a question has to be. Personally, I agree with skchsan that you should answer questions when asked, but the degree of specificity is something the other player needs to decide on, not me. You also potentially leave yourself open to being accused of unsportsmanlike conduct if you genuinely forget a certain rule or strat at the time you're asked or you misinterpret your opponent's question somehow.

Fundamentally this comes down to the fact you're playing in a tournament and a certain level of knowledge of the game is expected. Furthermore, ignorance of certain aspects of the game should never be blamed on anyone except yourself. If you ask "can this unit Deep Strike?" and your opponent says no when they can, that's unsportsmanlike for sure. But if they say no but the unit has some other deployment or redeployment rule that isn't Deep Strike (Green Tide, for example) you're getting into grey areas that are open for interpretation.
   
Made in gb
Stalwart Ultramarine Tactical Marine





Stevenage, UK

Slipspace wrote:


Fundamentally this comes down to the fact you're playing in a tournament and a certain level of knowledge of the game is expected. Furthermore, ignorance of certain aspects of the game should never be blamed on anyone except yourself. If you ask "can this unit Deep Strike?" and your opponent says no when they can, that's unsportsmanlike for sure. But if they say no but the unit has some other deployment or redeployment rule that isn't Deep Strike (Green Tide, for example) you're getting into grey areas that are open for interpretation.


I can think of no better example of a "GOTCHA!" moment for a lot of players including experienced ones who are used to short-handing back to old universal special rule names than the following:

Player A - Can your unit Deep Strike?

Player B - No, that unit cannot Deep Strike


Time passes........

Player B - My unit shall now deploy in a non-standard fashion, but as you didn't use the name of the rule on the data-sheet and instead used a well known and common "catch all" term for it I haven't in fact lied to you! See how I bamboozled you with my superior tactical acumen, I will now proceed to wave my hecking huge nerd-wang around while proclaiming how great I am!

Player A - Uh-Huh, bit of a dick-move I'd say, I'm gonna get a drink as soon as I've packed my models, it's a far better use of my time.


Player A decides the tournament scene isn't as much fun as it's cracked up to be.

Player B celebrates getting their full tournament points again and ensures it's reflected in their oh-so-important ITC tournament rankings.

Sounds fun to me.

Rik
   
Made in us
Deathwing Terminator with Assault Cannon





yukishiro1 wrote:
I'm sorry you feel vilified.

I'm just glad we could clear up that refusing to answer your opponent's questions about your rules because you consider them insufficiently specific is not acceptable tournament behavior.
It’s intriguing that you thought all this time that this was about defending my actions/me being called ‘That Guy’, which in hindsight explains all the hostility in your posts. Seems like you’re out for personal vendetta rather than a discussion. Let’s keep this civil.

Stop claiming that you are mandated/required to provide your opponent with a full rundown of your army as required per this unspoken law of tournament/code of conduct as if it’s some sort of RIGHT as to be demanded for by the person who doesn’t own other armies’ codex. It’s your lack of preparation that caused this “ignorance”. Stop blaming others for your ignorance. If you don't know, just ask politely - don't make demands since that's the "right thing to do."

Sharing information is a gesture of common courtesy, not a regulated mandate. We don’t do it because we’re required to because there’s a paywall and we must be considerate to those who have not, otherwise you’ve cheated your opponent because you took advantage of their ignorance, etc. We do it because it’s nice to be polite and respecting. It's also fun to chat and learn new things, like army you've never faced before.

Let’s put it this way – if you are weaponizing your own ignorance to force other people to do things for you (i.e. 'give me your army's A-to-Z so I don't get caught off guard by a possible gotcha moment you can set up. If I get caught in a gotcha moment, that's because you didn't disclose the necessary information" which is in a way asking "tell me your offensive plans so I can avoid being caught in them"), then the problem is you, not the opponent. If you come out and start blaming other player for your tactical mistake – “you didn’t tell me you could do that! I would’ve done something totally else if I knew that! That’s something you should’ve told me even if I didn’t ask about it! You’re such a ‘That Guy’”, that attitude is going to get you nowhere. You can’t force your opponent to accept your takesies backsies because he wasn’t aware that you weren’t aware. Likely, this person is more likely to be called ‘That Guy’ that just blames other people for his mistakes, rather than being revered as the martyr who sacrificed his win to expose the opponent of his “wrong doings”.

I’m sure as hell not going to feel like sharing information if someone showed up at the table with this sort of attitude.

This message was edited 8 times. Last update was at 2021/04/21 16:46:30


 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 skchsan wrote:
Seems like you’re out for personal vendetta rather than a discussion. Let’s keep this civil.

Stop claiming that you are mandated/required to provide your opponent with a full rundown of your army as required per this unspoken law of tournament/code of conduct as if it’s some sort of RIGHT as to be demanded for by the person who doesn’t own other armies’ codex. It’s your lack of preparation that caused this “ignorance”. Stop blaming others for your ignorance. If you don't know, just ask politely - don't make demands since that's the "right thing to do."


That's about the third time you've produced an amazingly ironic and hypocritical post without apparently realizing it. I think this discussion has run its useful life, you're just straw-manning at this point about people allegedly demanding to be told their opponent's tactical plans when we all know - yourself included - that that's an utterly dishonest distortion of what anyone has said. It's not worth continuing a discussion with someone who can't help debating so dishonestly.

If you refuse to answer questions about your army's rules because you don't think they're specific enough, you're going to be treated like a bad competitor. If you take advantage of your opponent's lack of knowledge of your rules by deliberately not telling them what your army can do and then springing your rules upon them in the full knowledge that they weren't aware of it, you're going to be treated like a bad competitor. If you want to do those things so badly anyway that you're willing to pay the reputational price, go ahead and do it; nobody can stop you and it's your reputation to ruin. If you're not doing those things, you have nothing to worry about and no reason to defend that behavior. I don't think further discussion is going to be useful.







Automatically Appended Next Post:
Slipspace wrote:
yukishiro1 wrote:
I'm sorry you feel vilified.

I'm just glad we could clear up that refusing to answer your opponent's questions about your rules because you consider them insufficiently specific is not acceptable tournament behavior.


I've also never heard of this unwritten rule you keep going on about. I think the disagreement here is over how specific a question has to be. Personally, I agree with skchsan that you should answer questions when asked, but the degree of specificity is something the other player needs to decide on, not me. You also potentially leave yourself open to being accused of unsportsmanlike conduct if you genuinely forget a certain rule or strat at the time you're asked or you misinterpret your opponent's question somehow.

Fundamentally this comes down to the fact you're playing in a tournament and a certain level of knowledge of the game is expected. Furthermore, ignorance of certain aspects of the game should never be blamed on anyone except yourself. If you ask "can this unit Deep Strike?" and your opponent says no when they can, that's unsportsmanlike for sure. But if they say no but the unit has some other deployment or redeployment rule that isn't Deep Strike (Green Tide, for example) you're getting into grey areas that are open for interpretation.


If you ask whether they can deep strike and they say no when the answer is yes, that's straight-up cheating, not unsportsmanlike conduct, and it would likely get the player kicked out of the tournament or at the very least yellow carded. Unsportsmanlike conduct is when you ask "does that unit have an invuln" and they say "no" and then you target it and they say "ok I'm spending 1CP to give it a 4+ invuln, you asked if it had an invuln, not whether I could give it one with a strat!"

Any time you answer your opponent's question in a less than complete manner in order to try to then spring a trap on them, that's unsportsmanlike conduct by definition. It isn't up to your opponent to find the magic words to get you to reveal your rules. If they're asking you about invulns on a unit, you have to tell them about any way that unit can get an invuln, not just whether it has one right now. If they're asking you about deep strike, you have to tell them about any other ways you have to redeploy the unit in a similar manner to deep strike, you don't get to say "no" then use the strat that puts them back into reserves to deep strike the next turn.

That anyone could seriously think it was ok to deceive the opponent that way is depressing to me. If you legitimately forget to tell your opponent something that's different, but then it's on you to make it right by not exploiting the false impression you unwittingly gave them. Any time your opponent asks you a question you have a responsibility to answer that question as fully and thoroughly as you can, and you certainly have a responsibility not to answer the question in an overly narrow way with the specific intent to deceive through a technically correct but actually incomplete answer.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/04/21 17:14:30


 
   
Made in us
Deathwing Terminator with Assault Cannon





Communication is a privilege, not a right. (not to mention 'you' is used as a collective noun and not direct at you specifically). If you failed to communicate that you need explanation, then don't blame the other person for the failure to not answer questions that weren't asked of them. By assuming that the other person doesn't know is asserting that the other person is ignorant, which by its connotation is looking down on them for their lack of knowledge.

You have a tendency of getting heated when people don't agree with you and dropping the conversation with line like "I'm done talking. You can do whatever you want. I'll give you the freedom to think however you like. I'll let you have the last words."

You're not letting anyone do anything nor are you the person who we need permission from to speak or think - everyone's free to contribute to the discussion. If you disagree with something, then learn to just agree to disagree instead of attacking the posters for having opinions that are different than yours.


This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2021/04/21 17:29:29


 
   
Made in us
Insect-Infested Nurgle Chaos Lord





In My Lab

 skchsan wrote:
Communication is a privilege, not a right. (not to mention 'you' is used as a collective noun and not direct at you specifically). If you failed to communicate that you need explanation, then don't blame the other person for the failure to not answer questions that weren't asked of them. By assuming that the other person doesn't know is same thing as looking down on them.

You have a tendency of getting heated when people don't agree with you and dropping the conversation with line like "I'm done talking. You can do whatever you want. I'll give you the freedom to think however you like. I'll let you have the last words."

You're not letting anyone do anything nor are you the person who we need permission from to speak or think - everyone's free to contribute to the discussion. If you disagree with something, then learn to just agree to disagree instead of attacking the posters for having opinions that are different than yours.


That is a very strange mindset. The bolded bit. Just... Can you explain further?

And I don't consider it condescending in the slightest to ask "Hey, how much do you know about my army?" It's far more courteous than condescending.

Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne! 
   
Made in us
Deathwing Terminator with Assault Cannon





 JNAProductions wrote:
 skchsan wrote:
Communication is a privilege, not a right. (not to mention 'you' is used as a collective noun and not direct at you specifically). If you failed to communicate that you need explanation, then don't blame the other person for the failure to not answer questions that weren't asked of them. By assuming that the other person doesn't know is same thing as looking down on them.

You have a tendency of getting heated when people don't agree with you and dropping the conversation with line like "I'm done talking. You can do whatever you want. I'll give you the freedom to think however you like. I'll let you have the last words."

You're not letting anyone do anything nor are you the person who we need permission from to speak or think - everyone's free to contribute to the discussion. If you disagree with something, then learn to just agree to disagree instead of attacking the posters for having opinions that are different than yours.


That is a very strange mindset. The bolded bit. Just... Can you explain further?

And I don't consider it condescending in the slightest to ask "Hey, how much do you know about my army?" It's far more courteous than condescending.
For this discussion, it would mean "Your opponent doesn't owe you a single thing as of right, so don't be an ass and demand things from your opponent with statements like "oh but that's the unwritten code of conduct. if you don't comply, then I'll call you 'That Guy', and instead ask nicely. Don't call your opponent 'That Guy' because you got had from something that you didn't know, and didn't ask, since your opponent is not a mind reader, so they don't know what you know and don't know."

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/04/21 17:38:49


 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 skchsan wrote:
Communication is a privilege, not a right. (not to mention 'you' is used as a collective noun and not direct at you specifically). If you failed to communicate that you need explanation, then don't blame the other person for the failure to not answer questions that weren't asked of them. By assuming that the other person doesn't know is asserting that the other person is ignorant, which by its connotation is looking down on them for their lack of knowledge.

You have a tendency of getting heated when people don't agree with you and dropping the conversation with line like "I'm done talking. You can do whatever you want. I'll give you the freedom to think however you like. I'll let you have the last words."

You're not letting anyone do anything nor are you the person who we need permission from to speak or think - everyone's free to contribute to the discussion. If you disagree with something, then learn to just agree to disagree instead of attacking the posters for having opinions that are different than yours.




I wasn't for a moment suggesting you aren't free to continue to discuss the issue with anyone else, and I don't think my comment can honestly be read that way; I think you are straw manning again, which is an illustration of exactly what I was saying re: the futility of further discussion. I just meant that our particular discussion doesn't seem to be useful, we're just going in circles here and when we get to the point where you can't help straw-manning what the other person is saying in patently silly ways like equating wanting wanting to know how your opponent's army's rule work to wanting to be clued in to their tactical plan, it's a good clue there's no productive conversation to be had any more.

We've laid out our points of view. You think it's ok to take advantage of someone's ignorance of your rules because it's their responsibility not to be taken advantage of, and you also think it's ok to refuse to answer their questions about your rules if you deem them insufficiently specific. I think that's poor sportsmanship, and I think most 40k players take my point of view on it; you presumably think most players take your point of view. There's not much more to talk about. One of us is right about what most people think, the other isn't, and we presumably both think it's the other guy who's wrong.
   
Made in us
Insect-Infested Nurgle Chaos Lord





In My Lab

Skchsan, what would you do if you were facing an experienced player, and they told you "I've never faced your army before-what does it do?"

Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne! 
   
Made in us
Deathwing Terminator with Assault Cannon





@yukishiro1 I think it's great that you understand that you're not the master of anyone.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 JNAProductions wrote:
Skchsan, what would you do if you were facing an experienced player, and they told you "I've never faced your army before-what does it do?"
Experienced or not, I'd ask them if they want to see my rulebook/FAQ's and point them to the relevant sections. Really, all you need a good 5 minutes going thru the stratagems and the army rules section. I prepare my lists with battlescribe with stats showing. I point to them the weird rules interactions that is prevalent for my army for 'general' grey areas. I prefer to show them how to do their homework rather than doing their homework FOR them.

If they have any special needs (i.e. dyslexic), then I would do my best to accommodate their needs.

IMO, written words > my interpretation via spoken words. This way, I could make sure that I didn't forget to tell them anything and get blamed for it later.

If they still have questions, then we'd hash it out prior to game so it doesn't cause the kind of clashes that would net you the title of "that guy" from a salty player.

Now, I would argue that the "correct" way this should've been handled is that the 'experienced player' in your example should have led with something in the lines of "hey, do you mind if I read your rulebook? I never played against your faction so I have no idea what I need to kill first " I don't think one's ignorance is something that should be touted and swung around like a bat, demanding stuff to be handed to you on a silver platter.

It's not a crime to be ignorant, but refusing to learn is (i.e. 'nah, I'm too lazy to read. Just tell me what I need to do to not get caught in your gotcha set up'). If I were to give you a comprehensive list of 'gotcha' moments that could land me that title that you need to be wary of, and you've successfully avoided all the gotcha moments by following my warnings, have you actually learned anything? or did you just navigate through the game following the directions? I find this to be incredibly insulting and demeaning to both me and my opponent. It's like saying "you're not intelligent enough to analyze the situation to keep your army out of harms way. so let me tell you exactly what you should and should not do against my army"

This message was edited 13 times. Last update was at 2021/04/21 20:59:48


 
   
Made in us
Dangerous Outrider






A lot of going back and forth on the code of conduct. That's why many tournaments added sportsmanship rules.
The real question is if new players were constantly hit with "gotcha moments" do you think they would continue with the game?
Is this style of play adding to the game or will it take players away from the game?

I realize some people think that I need to know every detail about my opponent's army but I don't know many people that have that amount of free time
to study every little trick. But If I don't use a certain rule normally and I ask an opponent about it, like where to find it in the book and he is helpful
I would have no problem. If they act shifty I think they are trying to pull something or giving their own interpretation of the rules.

 
   
Made in us
Monster-Slaying Daemonhunter




While we are creating rules of conduct that, if broken, result in the player being labeled and attacked, can we create a bathing rule? How about a no strong odors rule? No vaping?

I've had all three, at different events, and obviously pre-COVID, but still. I would sooner attend a MTG event for fresh air than a 40k event.

I am sick of unwashed, sullied, and trashy human beings that can't figure out Deodorant, let alone special rules. Then there is Captain cheesy fingers that always wants to touch models.

3 rules I would create:

1. All players must be washed and in relatively clean clothes prior to their match.

2. No touching of your opponent's models, books, or things, without express permission.

3. Vaping is disgusting and stupid, and you should not "blow fat dank clouds" while at the event.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Vaping indoors at public events should absolutely not be allowed and I would be really surprised if an event allowed it.

Not touching your opponent's models without permission is certainly part of the basic 40k code of conduct.

Personal hygiene is a difficult subject that is pretty much impossible to legislate for because it's so subjective, so that makes it really hard to do anything about.
   
Made in us
Dangerous Outrider






yukishiro1 wrote:
1. All players must be washed and in relatively clean clothes prior to their match.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

Personal hygiene is a difficult subject that is pretty much impossible to legislate for because it's so subjective, so that makes it really hard to do anything about it.


Yeah, I have seen players show up clean normal people but only had enough money for entry, so the rest of the weekend they act like homeless people, sleeping on the floor and begging people for food.
Then by Sunday, you want to use the six feet rule around them before the pandemic.

But we are here to discuss "Gotcha" players. Because one thing I have always seen is that people act differently in friendly basement games and a tournament with prizes.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/04/21 19:29:03


 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




You got those quotes backwards (not that it really matters, just FWIW).
   
Made in ca
Pestilent Plague Marine with Blight Grenade





The Frozen North

 skchsan wrote:
It's not a crime to be ignorant, but refusing to learn is (i.e. 'nah, I'm too lazy to read. Just tell me what I need to do to not get caught in your gotcha set up'). If I were to give you a comprehensive list of 'gotcha' moments that could land me that title that you need to be wary of, and you've successfully avoided all the gotcha moments by following my warnings, have you actually learned anything? or did you just navigate through the game following the directions? I find this to be incredibly insulting and demeaning to both me and my opponent. It's like saying "you're not intelligent enough to analyze the situation to keep your army out of harms way. so let me tell you exactly what you should and should not do against my army"

Hear, hear.

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 us
Insect-Infested Nurgle Chaos Lord





In My Lab

 MinMax wrote:
 skchsan wrote:
It's not a crime to be ignorant, but refusing to learn is (i.e. 'nah, I'm too lazy to read. Just tell me what I need to do to not get caught in your gotcha set up'). If I were to give you a comprehensive list of 'gotcha' moments that could land me that title that you need to be wary of, and you've successfully avoided all the gotcha moments by following my warnings, have you actually learned anything? or did you just navigate through the game following the directions? I find this to be incredibly insulting and demeaning to both me and my opponent. It's like saying "you're not intelligent enough to analyze the situation to keep your army out of harms way. so let me tell you exactly what you should and should not do against my army"

Hear, hear.
That presumes that the "Gotchas" are complicated and nuanced.

With something like, say, Syndonian Dragoons, it used to be you could hit on a 2+ with each 4+ on die generating two extra hits. That's a lot more dangerous than just stats would indicate-but it's not hard to figure out. It literally just requires reading their Taser rules and the right stratagem.

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




It's just a bit silly all around. Tactics and knowledge of rules are totally different things. Nobody's asking you to explain your tactical plan, but explaining your rules is not explaining your tactical plan. To suggest it is is kinda insulting to everyone's intelligence. If you've really come up with something so galaxy brain that nobody else has thought of it...telling your opponent your rules in detail won't give away your plan, because it's so galaxy brain that normal people wouldn't think of it. If your plan is so obvious that telling your opponent your rules reveals what it is...your plan isn't so galaxy brain in the first place. You can't really have it both ways.
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




yukishiro1 wrote:

Slipspace wrote:
yukishiro1 wrote:
I'm sorry you feel vilified.

I'm just glad we could clear up that refusing to answer your opponent's questions about your rules because you consider them insufficiently specific is not acceptable tournament behavior.


I've also never heard of this unwritten rule you keep going on about. I think the disagreement here is over how specific a question has to be. Personally, I agree with skchsan that you should answer questions when asked, but the degree of specificity is something the other player needs to decide on, not me. You also potentially leave yourself open to being accused of unsportsmanlike conduct if you genuinely forget a certain rule or strat at the time you're asked or you misinterpret your opponent's question somehow.

Fundamentally this comes down to the fact you're playing in a tournament and a certain level of knowledge of the game is expected. Furthermore, ignorance of certain aspects of the game should never be blamed on anyone except yourself. If you ask "can this unit Deep Strike?" and your opponent says no when they can, that's unsportsmanlike for sure. But if they say no but the unit has some other deployment or redeployment rule that isn't Deep Strike (Green Tide, for example) you're getting into grey areas that are open for interpretation.


If you ask whether they can deep strike and they say no when the answer is yes, that's straight-up cheating, not unsportsmanlike conduct, and it would likely get the player kicked out of the tournament or at the very least yellow carded. Unsportsmanlike conduct is when you ask "does that unit have an invuln" and they say "no" and then you target it and they say "ok I'm spending 1CP to give it a 4+ invuln, you asked if it had an invuln, not whether I could give it one with a strat!"


I don't think you're having the same debate other people are. You're not even reading what you're quoting since I specifically say if you are asked if a unit can Deep Strike and you say no when the answer is yes that's unsportsmanlike. I'd agree with you and call it cheating. I don't think anyone's disagreeing with this so I don't know why you keep bringing it up.

yukishiro1 wrote:


Any time you answer your opponent's question in a less than complete manner in order to try to then spring a trap on them, that's unsportsmanlike conduct by definition. It isn't up to your opponent to find the magic words to get you to reveal your rules. If they're asking you about invulns on a unit, you have to tell them about any way that unit can get an invuln, not just whether it has one right now. If they're asking you about deep strike, you have to tell them about any other ways you have to redeploy the unit in a similar manner to deep strike, you don't get to say "no" then use the strat that puts them back into reserves to deep strike the next turn.


It's not about finding "the magic words", it's about what's reasonable for me to do in a tournament environment where time is a factor. Nothing here applies to a friendly game down at the store, and it definitely doesn't apply to games against new players just figuring out how the basics work. But tournaments have time limits and there's an assumed level of knowledge for all participants. I'm also not interested in getting into an argument over semantics with my opponent and it seems weird to put the onus on me to figure out what is answering in a "complete manner". If they ask if I can Deep Strike, but actually want to know about any and all redeploy strats you seem to be saying the onus is on me to discern their meaning if they're unclear and I'm the one in the wrong for them not being specific enough. Green Tide (or whatever the Ork strat is called that allows you to return a unit to full strength and bring it on from a board edge) is the example I chose precisely because it's ambiguous in this context. If you ask me if a unit can Deep Strike I'd mention Da Jump but I may forget about Green Tide, or assume you're not talking about the more restrictive deployment rules for that strat, depending on how you phrase the question and other context. Similarly, if you ask something like "what defensive strats and abilities does that unit have" I may say just Transhuman or -1 to wound but then you might get annoyed when I resurrect a couple of guys using a strat next turn because you think that's a defensive strat whereas I don't.

I think both players need to accept with the way 40k is designed it's very difficult to go over all of these situations either prior to the game or in the middle of the game. All information in rulebooks is open information and should be provided when asked for. However, constantly interrupting the game to ask endless questions about strats and rules for your opponents army is probably taking it too far. Getting annoyed with your opponent because your ambiguous question wasn't answered to your satisfaction is not entirely your opponents fault. It may not even be their fault at all depending how the question was asked.
   
Made in us
Deathwing Terminator with Assault Cannon





 JNAProductions wrote:
 MinMax wrote:
 skchsan wrote:
It's not a crime to be ignorant, but refusing to learn is (i.e. 'nah, I'm too lazy to read. Just tell me what I need to do to not get caught in your gotcha set up'). If I were to give you a comprehensive list of 'gotcha' moments that could land me that title that you need to be wary of, and you've successfully avoided all the gotcha moments by following my warnings, have you actually learned anything? or did you just navigate through the game following the directions? I find this to be incredibly insulting and demeaning to both me and my opponent. It's like saying "you're not intelligent enough to analyze the situation to keep your army out of harms way. so let me tell you exactly what you should and should not do against my army"

Hear, hear.
That presumes that the "Gotchas" are complicated and nuanced.

With something like, say, Syndonian Dragoons, it used to be you could hit on a 2+ with each 4+ on die generating two extra hits. That's a lot more dangerous than just stats would indicate-but it's not hard to figure out. It literally just requires reading their Taser rules and the right stratagem.
Rather, I think the concept/definition of 'gotcha's' got blown way out of proportion past the 1st page of this post.

I thought your summary was on point:
 JNAProductions wrote:
So, two statements, to agree or disagree with:

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

2) Lying to your opponent about your army is cheating. Saying something like “You have no penalties to hit my Venom,” in their movement phase so they move something to target it, and then using their -1 to be hit rule in shooting isn’t just rude, it’s cheating.
Just as you've surmised, I don't think gotcha moments are complicated nor nuanced at all. They are all very much straight forward that can be resolved within reasonable time expenditure (because interwebz). I don't think it's fair to demand things from your opponent with reasons like "nobody can afford all the books," "I don't have time to learn EVERY ARMY in the game," or because "that's sportsmanship".

Obviously, the second case is without a doubt an example of someone cheating. Despite, somewhere along the lines of this discussion, the term 'gotcha' became to be used as a catch-all for all 'feels bad' moments - I don't agree with that. I think this was also the reason why the discussion escalated the way it did - one party was thinking the other was defending these gamey/cheating moments as if these were simply part of the game, and the other side was arguing under the assumption that everyone had already agreed that this is straight up cheating and was building their arguments upon that agreement as a given.

I don't think the term should be used as a catch-all phrase to include instances such as pre-nerf 8th edition's berzerkers-in-plasma-transport shenanigans, the turn 1 "deep strike" via by 'da jump' (before it was fully clarified), etc. - plays that rely on threading multiple needles and RAW oddities to claim its legitimacy, because these are simply plays that game the rules. At that point, you're not playing the game using the rules, but using the rules to "play" the game. When you do this, you're certainly being TFG. But to call someone TFG because you didn't know and your opponent didn't know that you didn't know is unfair.

To me, gotcha moments are when you make a bad move (whether its based on presumed knowledge that happens to be false, based on lack of information outright, or simple mistake/oversight), and consequently suffer terrible losses due to your opponent capitalizing on that particular mistake (just as you summarized handily). Some examples might be, you just charged your ace melee unit near unit with 'fight last' ability; you've left a gap in your screen allowing a unit with move-twice + improved advance + charge after advance rule to get inside your formation; not knowing about 8th ed BA smash captains with strat + strat + relic + WL trait wombo combo, etc. But as many of us pointed out, I don't believe it's on the opponent to prevent you from making a fatal mistake. Because we're not mind readers, there's no way to tell whether that mistake was intentional, based on false information, or based on lack of information.

For what it's worth, I would further argue that gotcha moments aren't limited to when one side knows less than the other and could even include instances that could occur between two high level players where one cleverly outmaneuvers the opponent to force them to choose between making a bad move and worse move. In this instance, you're simply outplayed by your opponent, and that shouldn't be the ground for calling someone TFG. For example, you dumped your offensives on the wrong target, leaving a deathstar in your face (loss by bad target priority; pure player mistake); the brave soul who charged against the early 8th ed hellhound leafblower forcing them to fall back further and further until there was no room (loss by balls of pure steel; movement, charge & shooting phase manipulation); the one who first drafted up the smash captain in response to the plague that was castellan (loss at list building; meta counter), etc. I would also consider these gotcha's - "you thought you were being smart with that strat, but here's my counter".

So, the point is, you have to communicate - you have to help your opponent (by letting them know you need help understanding) so that they can help you (by providing relevant information).


Automatically Appended Next Post:
yukishiro1 wrote:
It's just a bit silly all around. Tactics and knowledge of rules are totally different things. Nobody's asking you to explain your tactical plan, but explaining your rules is not explaining your tactical plan. To suggest it is is kinda insulting to everyone's intelligence. If you've really come up with something so galaxy brain that nobody else has thought of it...telling your opponent your rules in detail won't give away your plan, because it's so galaxy brain that normal people wouldn't think of it. If your plan is so obvious that telling your opponent your rules reveals what it is...your plan isn't so galaxy brain in the first place. You can't really have it both ways.
I think it's even sillier that someone should blame another person for their own lack of knowledge. If you're a player is so mad that other people won't teach you them, why not just take the matter into your their own hand and find some free resources to learn so that you they don't get caught with your their pants down at your their next tournament?

They have to understand that it is not the opponent pulled their pants down. They came to the table with their pants down. Don't get mad if the opponent refuse to pull up their pants for them - they may not be comfortable with that, so don't assume that it is within your rights as a tournament attendee to be taught on table.

LAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAST edit: "TFG" is one of the most offensive names you can call someone at events like these. It's a term that's used for segregating certain toxic members of the hobby community. Don't assume it's your right to denigrate others and call them "TFG" just because you came unprepared and the other person is being less than accommodating to your needs.

This message was edited 20 times. Last update was at 2021/04/23 17:28:04


 
   
 
Forum Index » Tournament Discussions
Go to: