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.

 jy2 wrote:
Keep in mind that not everyone is knowledgeable on every single army in the 40K universe. There are many players even on the GT scale that are not 100% familiar with units in other codices. Unless you told him before the game what all the Avatar's powers are, there is a good chance that he did not know the Avatar was immune to meltas. Now you are under no obligation to do so, but if this was the case (i.e. he was ignorant of the rules of your units), then I feel it s a d*ck move to let him do so. That is taking advantage of his ignorance. It's one thing if someone makes a tactical mistake or a risky play or forget a core rulebook rule. He is responsible for that. It is another thing to expect him to know about rules of other armies that he has not much experience with. He might not even know what questions to ask when looking over your army list.

So in short, if he knows about the rules for the Avatar (i.e. because I told him) but still goes after the Avatar with meltas, then that's on him. However, if he didn't know about it and goes after the Avatar, then I would remind him....even in a GT environment. Or at the very least, I would give him a hint...."Are you sure you want to do this?....."

This. +1

I don't like to be TFG.. I also don't take pleasure in winning a game for the sake of winning, I don't want my win attributed to your ignorance, I want it attributed to your stupidity ha! Well more, due to making less stupid moves than my opponent, but ya know what I mean. + luck of the dice and all that jazz.


At least when you ask "are you sure you want to do that"... you can remind them of that fact when they say "WHAT AVATAR IS IMMUNE TO MELTA???" ... so Honestly I would say "are you sure you want to do that, it won't do jack as hes immune to melta" etc...

Advancement of my army, what works, etc, I feel should be tested in worst case scenarios so you can adapt the most right? I'm not going to get better as a player by winning games because of my opponents ignorance, he won't have fun, so why do it? If you're in a GT for monies or whatever, thats fine, but I doubt thats what the majority of players are there for, the majority (i reckon) are there to have fun. It all comes down to where your fun is derived from, winning because your opponent didn't have all the pertinent information present to him to base a decision off of is not really a "win" to me at all in 40k as its open list. If your opponent stupidly ignored you saying "oh hes immune" and shot anyways just to roll some dice, and in doing so wasted a turn, thats on him..

lots of armies have lots of special rules, and if your unfamiliar it might be hard to remember throughout the course of a game that a specific model has a particular immunity etc. I routinely will ask the same Q to my opponent... "what invul save does your lord have again?" Which can be annoying, I try not to do it too many times but things are easily forgotten in games of toy soldiers! Lots of stuff to remember! to people who don't play these sorts of games the sheer level of information is somewhat daunting!

I make an effort to remind my opponent of everything that has clearly been forgotten, whether it's forgetting to use a psychic power or forgetting to shoot with a unit. I hope for (but don't necessarily expect) the same courtesy from my opponents. Tournament play requires a balance between thoughtful deliberation and streamlined decision making in order to bring games to completion within the allotted time. This goes double for 6th edition, which plays much more slowly in comparison to mech-heavy 5th.

Reminding opponents to do things (regardless of whether it helps or hurts them) is something I see as vital to playing competitively. Good sportsmanship is merely a side effect (albeit a good one).

To me, the best games are the ones decided by whomever exercised better tactics and strategy; winning because an opponent forgot to do something is a hollow victory. I can think of several games that I've lost as a direct result of reminding an opponent of a critical omission (e.g., rolling for reserves), and the game was better for it. I'd rather lose a game where both people gave it their best than win because one of us forgot something in our rush to beat the clock.

Naturally, we go to a tournament with the intention of winning. I'll be at the GT in Pleasanton this weekend and, while I know my odds of winning are lower than Reecius or Jy2 or whomever, I am still TRYING to win at all times or why go? So, if my opponent makes a tactical error, I am not likely to have much sympathy for him.

If, on the other hand, a rule is being broken (even if it is clearly in my favor) it is incumbent on me to speak up as soon as I notice. Why? Because if I remain silent, I am cheating. There are no two ways about this.

The idea that "if you ain't cheatin', you ain't tryin'" seems to be far to accepted in wargaming and it is, I believe, the biggest thing holding back the average gamer's interest in going to tournaments. I believe that, if TO's would serious about growing the game, they would (and easily could) stamp this idea out quickly.

I hear people say "Well, it's he said/she said" or "I can't be 100% sure what happened, even though I absolutely believe x." To me, that is childish excuse making. If you see what you believe is cheating, if the potential cheater's explanations don't waver your believe, that is enough for a 'conviction' (disqualification, banning from future events, etc.). This is not a court of law. TO's must endeavor to appear impartial, of course, but their word is final in their own events and I think 40K would be greatly benefited by the community coming to know that "probably cheating" is enough to get you blackballed for a while.

I agree, in a tourney it would be the players fualt for not knowing what type of unit/ his special rules before he moved up to make his attack. but ill remind people throughout the game on exactly what i have or ask what exactly they think they are doing! haha
Personally ive never had a problem with opponents not knowing something about my army because, since i play Imperial guard, 95-97 percent of the stuff is straight forward, what you see is what you get... haha,
But also on the other hand i come up against units i have no idea what their rules are in tournaments and friendly games.
but still...
Honestly i dont care to read any other codex to learn my opponents inside and out. ( i have all the codexs to rule check things that seem a bit sketchy or to crazy, and the fluff is cool) I feel it adds extra strategy to the game, an extra exciting event and challenge when it comes to fighting xenos and other units i dont know everything about,
I have always been a fluffy player and i think it fits right in for a squad of melta vets to run up, expecting to do some damage to a avatar and then after firing, they look down at their meltas to see what could have gone wrong, and then look back up at the giant avatar and mumble the word s#*t before they are cut down mercilessly... then from that moment on my vets and I know, hey ! meltas dont work against avatars... hahaha
Just remember your not playing right if everyone isnt having fun! winning or losing!
Tony A

 Cortez667 wrote:
jy2: I think at the bigger tournaments, its a reasonable expectation for your opponent to at least have a vague understanding of how each army works. Few (if any) players know EVERY single rule, but they should know what a Heldrake does, they should know what each codex's scoring units are, they should know that Draigo is a beast, etc.

Right. Most tournament players do have basic knowledge of enemy armies. For eldar, basic info would include these - most eldar units can run and shoot or shoot and run, most eldar shooting are rending, eldar are similar to Imperial weaklings but with slighty better armor, farseers can cast a lot of psychic powers, eldar jetbikes can move in the assault phase, banshees and harlequins are eldar assault units, wave serpents are fast and so forth.

However, the more advance rules are not necessarily known to people who don't play against eldar. Such rules include the Avatar being immune to melta/flamers, serpent shields ignore cover and cause pinning, Distort weapons will insta-kill on a wound roll of 6, they have a wargear that gives them Hit-&-Run, Stealth+Shroud and re-rollable cover!, eldar flyers can turn 90 degrees after they move, dark reapers can move and fire heavy weapons at full BS, scatter lasers can twin-link a model's other shooting, etc. These are the types of rules that can potentially blindside an opponent if he isn't aware and make for an unpleasant game.

Like jy2 and others said, I want to win on strategy, tactics, and army composition - not on a rules "gotcha!"...I play Magic for those sort of moments.

Generally at the start of a tourney game I'll ask my opponent if they need anything explained about my units, but otherwise assume they know what they feel they need to. It just saves time if I don't have to explain my army at the beginning of every game. In return in situations like the avatar, I'll point out the melta immunity when they make the move, then leave it up to them if they want to continue with that course of action.

If they are making a strategic or tactical error though that's on them. In a recent team tournament game, we played a team that were doing fairly well on the primary objectives and as the game was coming to a close, they obviously felt that they had the game in the bag. They failed to notice that we were crushing them on secondaries (tournament secondary objectives, not the book ones), and we didn't say a word about it. On the last turn we moved in to contest enough primaries to bring a draw there and won handily on secondary and tertiary objectives. It was pretty obvious they never saw it coming.

 Maelstrom808 wrote:
Like jy2 and others said, I want to win on strategy, tactics, and army composition - not on a rules "gotcha!"...I play Magic for those sort of moments.

That sounds odd, since Magic's rules, though complex, are well written enough and constantly maintained and there are literally hundreds of people who are experts on those rules. Unlike GW, WotC has made it a point that games should be determined by who is the better player (or the luckier one) rather than on who is better at using the rules to screw their opponent.

 tomjoad wrote:

 Maelstrom808 wrote:
Like jy2 and others said, I want to win on strategy, tactics, and army composition - not on a rules "gotcha!"...I play Magic for those sort of moments.

That sounds odd, since Magic's rules, though complex, are well written enough and constantly maintained and there are literally hundreds of people who are experts on those rules. Unlike GW, WotC has made it a point that games should be determined by who is the better player (or the luckier one) rather than on who is better at using the rules to screw their opponent.

It's not so much screwing someone on rules, but beating an opponent on something they have no knowledge of (the cards in your hand). Screwing someone, or rather letting someone screw themselves on rules feels very much the same to me.

Scenario:

Your opponent moves 3x SM attack bikes armed with multi-meltas towards your Avatar of Khaine. No other viable target for the multi-meltas is anywhere near the Avatar.

Its clear that they want to use the str 8 ap 1 weapons on your MC. Its also clear that they are unaware that your Avatar completely IGNORES these types of weapons.

Now, assuming you made every attempt to answer your opponent's questions about your army BEFORE the game even started (exchanged army lists, etc.), my question is this:

Are you obligated to remind your opponent that those multi-meltas are useless against the Avatar? Or do you just let him make the error and respectfully smear his attack bikes next turn?

I wouldn't say a thing as I consider this to be somewhat of a bone headed mistake. If you're playing in a GT then you should know better.

There are other lots of little things I'd let my opponent redo assuming they reciprocate.

Maybe he wanted to shoot the Avatar with 6 twin linked bolter shots.

Yeah, maybe he also wanted to charge the Avatar as well.

People should not be expected to know the specials rules in codices. The rulebook yes, but codices no. In the OP's case, the Eldar player has a responsibility to inform his opponent about the immunity to melta rule before the game even begins. If the Eldar player has informed his opponent, then he is under no obligation to remind his opponent. If he has not, he is obligated to tell his opponent (and shame on him for not telling in the first place).

In my third tournament, I went up against a Necron player. I asked about his list and made sure to go over every unit in his list and I asked about every special rule. I went first and moved everything towards him since he had castled in a little corner and had very little long-range firepower and I could move up without worry, or so I thought. Turns out he was playing what is known as a full court list, and his two main squads could deep strike every turn to anywhere on the board and I had just moved out of position to open up my squishy long range guys and my CC guys were no longer able to counter-engage that turn. Needless to say I was pissed. I specifically asked about every special rule and this was not mentioned. If you pull a move like that, you're a complete douchebag.

When you go to a tournament, as long as its not cheating, anything goes and players do expect others to know every codex and the specific units.

If you had the book there that he could have looked at that mentioned your guy was invulnerable to that then that's his loss.

Now if you only had the list that did not mention it or if he asked point blank anything there with invulnerability beforehand that I dunno...You must have the references for what you have on the board and I am assuming you did and he just did not ask.

I, as a Dark Angel Players always explain beforehand ablut Azrael and his IG blob having a 4++ save. About what the salvo banner does and about the Power field Generator on my librarian biker does. But I dont go into every specific rule like my marines being stubborn, hit nrun on my bikers. Rites of battle. It s all on my list and you are more likely to look at it. It would take too long to explain every unit rules and it already takes 3 hrs to finish a game.

I feel that as long as you go through both army lists before game (with the lists containing all stats, special rules, etc) and answer any question your opponent might have, you do not need to help them when they make a mistake.

Personally I always ask my opponent if he is familiar with the army I am playing. If he is I hand him my list and ask if there is anything unclear. If he is unfamiliar with the army I hand him my list and make sure to mention what the more obscure special rules are.

Then after the game has started I feel it isn't my job to play his army for him. Sure this cuts both ways and hurt me as well when I forget something (stupid early warning override :().
However I've come to the conclusion it is better to let people make the mistake and suffer consequences as that way you are a lot less likely to do this again (sure helped me when I forgot to battle focus my war walkers behind terrain, doubt I forget that again).

Would not let them take it back or remind them. I'll offer to let my opponent look at any of my rules before the game begins and at any time during the game if they have a question, so if they decide not to take advantage of the opportunity it's entirely their fault. The only situation where I'd remind someone of a rule would be if I explained how one of my units worked earlier and realized that I'd forgotten to mention a rule, since in that case I would be guilty of providing incomplete information.

 Maelstrom808 wrote:
It's not so much screwing someone on rules, but beating an opponent on something they have no knowledge of (the cards in your hand). Screwing someone, or rather letting someone screw themselves on rules feels very much the same to me.

It's not really the same at all. MTG was designed from day one to involve that element of hidden information, and bluff/counter-bluff is an important interaction between the players. In fact, without that hidden information the game would become incredibly boring as you would never be surprised by anything and the winner would always be the person who has the better luck with their draws. The equivalent in wargaming is things like rolling dice to resolve your attacks, you usually have a rough idea of what's going to happen but part of the skill of the game is adapting your plans when the dice don't give you exactly what you want.

Beating an opponent because they didn't know the rules, on the other hand, is just a case of the opponent not bothering to use the information they've been given.

 Peregrine wrote:
Would not let them take it back or remind them. I'll offer to let my opponent look at any of my rules before the game begins and at any time during the game if they have a question, so if they decide not to take advantage of the opportunity it's entirely their fault. The only situation where I'd remind someone of a rule would be if I explained how one of my units worked earlier and realized that I'd forgotten to mention a rule, since in that case I would be guilty of providing incomplete information.

 Maelstrom808 wrote:
It's not so much screwing someone on rules, but beating an opponent on something they have no knowledge of (the cards in your hand). Screwing someone, or rather letting someone screw themselves on rules feels very much the same to me.

It's not really the same at all. MTG was designed from day one to involve that element of hidden information, and bluff/counter-bluff is an important interaction between the players. In fact, without that hidden information the game would become incredibly boring as you would never be surprised by anything and the winner would always be the person who has the better luck with their draws. The equivalent in wargaming is things like rolling dice to resolve your attacks, you usually have a rough idea of what's going to happen but part of the skill of the game is adapting your plans when the dice don't give you exactly what you want.

Beating an opponent because they didn't know the rules, on the other hand, is just a case of the opponent not bothering to use the information they've been given.

I didn't say it was the same. I said:

feels very much the same

There is a difference.

Of course I'd remind them of the special rule. There are far too many rules across all the factions to expect a player to know them all, so if they are clearly acting in ignorance of one of those rules, I would remind them. There's no joy to me in a victory won on a misunderstanding of the rules, and I wouldn't spend time on a game if it wasn't fun.

 Julnlecs wrote:
When you go to a tournament, as long as its not cheating, anything goes and players do expect others to know every codex and the specific units.

If you're opponent asks you a specific well phrased question I think your obliged to answer it fully with complete disclosure to the best of your ability. You don't have to but to partially answer the question in a manner that misleads your opponent is dishonest... Don't be upset if they call you a bad name.

Yes Dozer Blades, im ok with that. But if they don't ask you those specific questions, what are you supposed to do?

If your in the running for a top seed then no. Your opponent at that level should know already.
If your already out of the running and just playing for the joy, then yeah, although I would let him make the move and shoot, then inform him of the Avatars immunity. Then allow him to redo that units movement and shooting.
Lesson learned and reinforced without having to be a DB about it.

It depends on the competitiveness of the game, strength of my opponent, and how close the game is.

In a casual game with an opponent who isn't the best, I will ALWAYS be looking to help them out so they can enjoy the game and learn.

In a tight tournament game against a good player, no way I'm helping them.

Everything else falls somewhere between those two on the spectrum. Generally, unless I'm in danger of losing AND the outcome of the game actually matters for something, I'll err on the side of helping.

Golden rule here, folks. Treat others the way you expect them to treat you.

There was a time when the "Spirit of the Game" was enforced. Including those competitive tournament style ones. The motto goes like this.

Be courteous to your opponent.
Be gracious in defeat.
Be humble in victory.

Now? Really do not care anymore about the tournament scene and it's importance with 40K. I could care less in winning or losing. I just want to at least have fun. So if you are so anal about winning, and won't do the right thing I'll give you the win and just walk away. I do not have time anymore to deal with people like that.

My group lets the first mistake of the game set the tone. If you forget to do something, and the opponent says tough luck, that's it for both parties for the whole game. If they let you have a mulligan, it goes the same way for the other person.

 Adam LongWalker wrote:
There was a time when the "Spirit of the Game" was enforced. Including those competitive tournament style ones. The motto goes like this.

Be courteous to your opponent.
Be gracious in defeat.
Be humble in victory.

Now? Really do not care anymore about the tournament scene and it's importance with 40K. I could care less in winning or losing. I just want to at least have fun. So if you are so anal about winning, and won't do the right thing I'll give you the win and just walk away. I do not have time anymore to deal with people like that.

I guess I'm confused why you would post here if you feel that way, or even why your in this section of the forums for that matter. Apparently you DO have the time, because you typed out that response.

There is still very much that "Code" in the tournament scene. I feel that this topic falls into a gray area however, and thus I posted to hear opinions.

On a different topic, I've detected a difference in the responses (here and in other threads) to these situations, between US players and (for lack of a better term for generalization) European players. The US players tend to be slightly more cut-throat about it.

I am not trying to over write the OP's original question, but after reading all the posts I feel this is a very grey area. So in the Eldar Avatar example there are three options to the player. 1) is to tell the opponent in the movement phase or as he is moving the unit that the Avatar is immune to melta. 2) is to tell him after the movement phase, but before he has declared with what he is shooting with, and who he is shooting at. or 3) not tell him at all as he should have asked about any special rules before he started to move his units to be reminded of who has what abilities. Which one is still fair, but not bad sportsmanship? Or which one is letting your opponent make tactical mistakes?

toocool61 wrote:
Which one is still fair, but not bad sportsmanship?

#3 is fair. It's not your job to help your opponent beat you, if they make a mistake it's their problem and they get to shoot some bolters at the Avatar.

toocool61 wrote:
3) not tell him at all as he should have asked about any special rules before he started to move his units to be reminded of who has what abilities.

This. Always offer your opponent any insight in your rules at the start of the game and, of course, if he asks, but after then, it's a competitive match. There's a reason you mostly see vets at the top of the tournament lists - they simple know everything about the different armies. On top of everything else ofc.

 Peregrine wrote:

toocool61 wrote:
Which one is still fair, but not bad sportsmanship?

#3 is fair. It's not your job to help your opponent beat you, if they make a mistake it's their problem and they get to shoot some bolters at the Avatar.

After seeing such a large consensus, I'm leaning towards this as well. I don't want to be TFG, but being knowledgeable about the different armies should hold some advantage.