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.

Hecaton wrote:


You don't know what a perfect information game is. The point is, in Chess, everything is on the board. There is no hidden hand of cards. In 40k, outside of a few very specific mechanics (GSC is it afaik), you always know the state of the game - there is no hidden hand of cards, no shuffled deck. Magic is very different.

I'm quoting you here Hec, because you specifically mention cards, but the comment applies equally to Jidmah, and it is a comment that I've made before to which neither of you have replied. Here is the Goonhammer article that explains how the Tempest of War Deck works. Read it and let me know if you think this version of 40K is a perfect information game or not: https://www.goonhammer.com/goonhammer-reviews-tempest-of-war/

The basics of it is that you choose deployment, a battlefield condition and a primary from (wait for it...) A SHUFFLED DECK (Awww YEAH!) Then each player randomly generates 3 (Count'em) secondaries, which they only reveal to their opponent only after completing them. They redraw back to three if they ever begin a turn with fewer than three. So from turn to turn neither I nor my opponent can predict my secondaries or theirs. To me, the quantity of information available seems less perfect than in Magic- at least in that game I know what I have to do to win.

As with all discussion on Dakka about 40k- it's a good idea to specific when you are talking about "the game" because 40k isn't A game. Depending upon how narrowly you define the parameters of what constitutes a unique play experience, it's possible to define 40k as anywhere from 3 to 24 or more games. Is Mission Pack based 40k a perfect information game? Maybe. I mean, theoretically, it can be- if you've got the time, the money and the memory, it can be.

My personal theory is that GW keep adding layers and layers of rules precisely to prevent the game from being a perfect information game. Which brings me to...

 Jidmah wrote:

40k having no hidden information is the prime reason why people feel like "Gotcha!" moments are a dick moves. In 40k a perfect player will never make a move that is not optimal to them, just like in chess.

Except that in the type of game you are describing as a perfect information game, there can't actually be such a thing as a "gotcha moment" at all.

So are all of the people who talk about 9th's "Gotcha" moments in your opinion just bad players? Because if it is perfect information, how did they not know that I was gonna Transhuman this or Vect cancel that? And if they did know, how is it a Gotcha?

Or is the next step to tell me I don't know what "Gotcha" means either? (Did I accurately predict that? If so, is Dakka a perfect information forum? Or are you going to reply with a gotcha post?)

Interesting side note: The first time someone ever took one of my chess pieces with an en passant move, it felt like someone had dropped a mad strat on me. Ditto the first time I saw someone castle.

Bruh those are core rules of chess

There's a difference between "Has access to the information, but doesn't know it," and "Doesn't have access to the information at all."

 JNAProductions wrote:
There's a difference between "Has access to the information, but doesn't know it," and "Doesn't have access to the information at all."

Agreed.

So what do YOU think about Tempest of War?

PenitentJake wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
There's a difference between "Has access to the information, but doesn't know it," and "Doesn't have access to the information at all."

Agreed.

So what do YOU think about Tempest of War?

Haven't tried it, so no real comment.

From what I know, it changes 40k from 100% information available, to only most of it available. It's still an entirely different beast than Magic.

PenitentJake wrote:
I'm quoting you here Hec, because you specifically mention cards, but the comment applies equally to Jidmah, and it is a comment that I've made before to which neither of you have replied. Here is the Goonhammer article that explains how the Tempest of War Deck works. Read it and let me know if you think this version of 40K is a perfect information game or not: https://www.goonhammer.com/goonhammer-reviews-tempest-of-war/

The basics of it is that you choose deployment, a battlefield condition and a primary from (wait for it...) A SHUFFLED DECK (Awww YEAH!) Then each player randomly generates 3 (Count'em) secondaries, which they only reveal to their opponent only after completing them. They redraw back to three if they ever begin a turn with fewer than three. So from turn to turn neither I nor my opponent can predict my secondaries or theirs. To me, the quantity of information available seems less perfect than in Magic- at least in that game I know what I have to do to win.

As with all discussion on Dakka about 40k- it's a good idea to specific when you are talking about "the game" because 40k isn't A game. Depending upon how narrowly you define the parameters of what constitutes a unique play experience, it's possible to define 40k as anywhere from 3 to 24 or more games. Is Mission Pack based 40k a perfect information game? Maybe. I mean, theoretically, it can be- if you've got the time, the money and the memory, it can be.

My personal theory is that GW keep adding layers and layers of rules precisely to prevent the game from being a perfect information game. Which brings me to...

It's an alternate game mode and isn't super relevant to the core experience of 40k. If they make it the standard in 10th then we might have another discussion.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

PenitentJake wrote:


Except that in the type of game you are describing as a perfect information game, there can't actually be such a thing as a "gotcha moment" at all.

So are all of the people who talk about 9th's "Gotcha" moments in your opinion just bad players? Because if it is perfect information, how did they not know that I was gonna Transhuman this or Vect cancel that? And if they did know, how is it a Gotcha?

Or is the next step to tell me I don't know what "Gotcha" means either? (Did I accurately predict that? If so, is Dakka a perfect information forum? Or are you going to reply with a gotcha post?)

Interesting side note: The first time someone ever took one of my chess pieces with an en passant move, it felt like someone had dropped a mad strat on me. Ditto the first time I saw someone castle.

You're not super clear on what a "perfect information" game is then.

The funniest thing in the last part of this discussion, is that „perfect information” and „complete information” are two, completely separate qualities, but some of you mix the two freely. That the term „gameplay” encompasses all structured decisions that follow the rules of the game and that includes the first, simultaneous move of deck/list composition in games with deck/list building element, and simultaneous moves are always hidden information, but some of you exclude this move from the „gameplay” just to „win the discussion on the interwebz”, because it disproves their point. (A hint: the most widely known simultaneous move game is rock/paper/scissors, a reference every 40k player understands perfectly). And last, but nowhere the least, that there is no academic consensus if games with chance element but otherwise known decision history are or aren’t perfect information games, so I sincerely doubt, that this thread will provide an answer to this question.

Hecaton wrote:


It's an alternate game mode and isn't super relevant to the core experience of 40k. If they make it the standard in 10th then we might have another discussion.

GW doesn't make any of their versions "standard" - that would mean a smaller player base. It's your meta that makes one version or another "standard".

Case and point: most people on Dakka, if asked which mode is "standard" would likely say Matched.

Yet there are more 9th ed publications that do contain Crusade rules than there are that do not.

Oh yeah, and that Tempest of War deck? It's a Matched play resource.

Hecaton wrote:

You're not super clear on what a "perfect information" game is then.

I'll be the first to admit that I am nowhere near as much of a game-theory shop-talker as many of the people on Dakka; I have never gone to school for game design, nor have I ever created or helped to create a published game. But quite frankly, I feel like there's a lot more subjectivity to what a "perfect information" game is than some of the die-hard shop talkers are acknowledging- which brings me too...

nou wrote:
The funniest thing in the last part of this discussion, is that „perfect information” and „complete information” are two, completely separate qualities, but some of you mix the two freely. That the term „gameplay” encompasses all structured decisions that follow the rules of the game and that includes the first, simultaneous move of deck/list composition in games with deck/list building element, and simultaneous moves are always hidden information, but some of you exclude this move from the „gameplay” just to „win the discussion on the interwebz”, because it disproves their point. (A hint: the most widely known simultaneous move game is rock/paper/scissors, a reference every 40k player understands perfectly). And last, but nowhere the least, that there is no academic consensus if games with chance element but otherwise known decision history are or aren’t perfect information games, so I sincerely doubt, that this thread will provide an answer to this question.

Awwww SNAP!

Exalted.

Bruh, you considered basic chess rules to be equivalent of Strats or CCG elements. You should've stopped a while ago

nou wrote:
The funniest thing in the last part of this discussion, is that „perfect information” and „complete information” are two, completely separate qualities, but some of you mix the two freely. That the term „gameplay” encompasses all structured decisions that follow the rules of the game and that includes the first, simultaneous move of deck/list composition in games with deck/list building element, and simultaneous moves are always hidden information, but some of you exclude this move from the „gameplay” just to „win the discussion on the interwebz”, because it disproves their point. (A hint: the most widely known simultaneous move game is rock/paper/scissors, a reference every 40k player understands perfectly).

Simultaneous moves aren't hidden information, the same way random dice aren't hidden information.

nou wrote:
And last, but nowhere the least, that there is no academic consensus if games with chance element but otherwise known decision history are or aren’t perfect information games, so I sincerely doubt, that this thread will provide an answer to this question.

Citation on this?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

PenitentJake wrote:

GW doesn't make any of their versions "standard" - that would mean a smaller player base. It's your meta that makes one version or another "standard".

Case and point: most people on Dakka, if asked which mode is "standard" would likely say Matched.

Yet there are more 9th ed publications that do contain Crusade rules than there are that do not.

Oh yeah, and that Tempest of War deck? It's a Matched play resource.

It's optional, however, and the vast majority of games are played without it. So it's not the standard, regardless of what kind of disingenuous chicanery you try to play.

PenitentJake wrote:
I'll be the first to admit that I am nowhere near as much of a game-theory shop-talker as many of the people on Dakka; I have never gone to school for game design, nor have I ever created or helped to create a published game. But quite frankly, I feel like there's a lot more subjectivity to what a "perfect information" game is than some of the die-hard shop talkers are acknowledging- which brings me too...

Not really. People are just misusing the term a lot.

PenitentJake wrote:


Awwww SNAP!

Exalted.

Did you understand that beyond them disagreeing with me?

so to sum it up:

Argument A VS Argument B:

A: 40k game design uses similar elements as MtG game design, simpified as "chasing the meta" to drive sales

B: they are not similar because 40k does not use cards in random booster packs

A: in addition 40k has gotcha moments, which are indented by design to drive sales (with the information hidden behind a paywall you either pay for it in advance or only know after wards)

B: no it does not because you don't have a hidden hand of cards

A: there is a hidden hand of cards

B: but no one uses this, I cannot proof it but otherwise my point would be invalid, so most people don't use it


basically "you are wrong, I cannot proof it, but you are wong"

Having just endured the last 5 pages at once, I have a thought re the 40k single game per opponent per round vs MTG "best of 3" per opponent per round.

What if you ran 501 point "best of 3" per round for an event (501 to be technically Incursion, and thus not force folks into only 1 patrol, but still small and fast, extra CP would help too)? Would that be roughly the same as a 2000 point round?

I feel like the smaller boards would be a huge plus. Also 3 games on the same terrain could mean you choose a different deployment zone, let alone deployment style.

 kodos wrote:
so to sum it up:

Argument A VS Argument B:

A: 40k game design uses similar elements as MtG game design, simpified as "chasing the meta" to drive sales

No, that's not what a lot of people are saying. You're confusing marketing/sales strategy with game design. They're not totally extricable from each other, but those are two different things.

 kodos wrote:
B: they are not similar because 40k does not use cards in random booster packs

This is, in fact, a very big difference between how 40k and MtG are sold.

 kodos wrote:
A: in addition 40k has gotcha moments, which are indented by design to drive sales (with the information hidden behind a paywall you either pay for it in advance or only know after wards)

You're misunderstanding the argument here. If someone's gotcha argument comes out of their hidden hand, it's not really a "gotcha" - you are supposed to be surprised by it by the way the game is structured. "Gotcha" moments happen because 40k *isn't* like magic - there are pieces of information which are technically open, but not knowing them by heart can put you in a very bad play position.

 kodos wrote:

B: no it does not because you don't have a hidden hand of cards

Again, incorrect.

 kodos wrote:
A: there is a hidden hand of cards

B: but no one uses this, I cannot proof it but otherwise my point would be invalid, so most people don't use it

No, I can prove that almost no one uses the Tempest of War deck.

 kodos wrote:
basically "you are wrong, I cannot proof it, but you are wong"

Nope. People have put forward a lot of good arguments that you've failed to acknowledge, and you would do well to show some fething respect and not lazily and two-facedly misrepresenting arguments in this way.

Hecaton wrote:
Nah, I admit when I'm wrong.

[Citation required]

Hecaton wrote:
People have put forward a lot of good arguments that you've failed to acknowledge, and you would do well to show some fething respect and not lazily and two-facedly misrepresenting arguments in this way.

Pot, meet kettle...

PenitentJake wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

40k having no hidden information is the prime reason why people feel like "Gotcha!" moments are a dick moves. In 40k a perfect player will never make a move that is not optimal to them, just like in chess.

Except that in the type of game you are describing as a perfect information game, there can't actually be such a thing as a "gotcha moment" at all.

That kind of is the point. Gotcha moments in 40k only happen because the excessive amount of information available in any given game exceeds what an average player can/wants to handle. I think you have heard of this "bloat" thing, right?

So are all of the people who talk about 9th's "Gotcha" moments in your opinion just bad players? Because if it is perfect information, how did they not know that I was gonna Transhuman this or Vect cancel that? And if they did know, how is it a Gotcha?

The opposite of a perfect player is not a bad player. A perfect chess player would never lose a game when playing white, yet even world champions do.
Having perfect information available doesn't automatically mean you make perfect decisions.
And for the sake of your example, if you don't know iconic and well-known stratagems like vect or transhuman, yes, that would make you a bad player. Not knowing "Line Unbreakable" or "Diseased Effluents" merely makes you a normal person (bonus points if you do know what these do).
If you are aware of all your opponent's datasheets and stratagems, either through memorizing them or looking them up during the game, there is no way to gotcha you in 40k.

Interesting side note: The first time someone ever took one of my chess pieces with an en passant move, it felt like someone had dropped a mad strat on me. Ditto the first time I saw someone castle.

See, even chess can have "gotcha!" moments
It's even the same kind of "gotcha!" as 40k has, that these moves exist is public information that you could theoretically have known.

Another thing that is a huge difference between how 40k and MtG work, by the way - in 40k it's often not that easy to discern what the optimal decision would be. Which is kind of important in a game with perfect information, and also a reason why static gunlines were making the game unfun - what to shoot is pretty much the only "easy" thing to figure out.
In MtG a lot of turns or even entire games feel like they run on rails because most of the decisions you could take are obvious bad ones, leaving you with just one or two options of what to do with a turn.

 Dysartes wrote:

Pot, meet kettle...

If you can't see how kodos was misinterpreting what I and others were saying in this thread, go read it again and get back to me. The difference is, I actually have facts on my side. When the facts aren't on my side, I'll change my opinion, but it looks pretty good from here.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jidmah wrote:

See, even chess can have "gotcha!" moments
It's even the same kind of "gotcha!" as 40k has, that these moves exist is public information that you could theoretically have known.

You are aware that the poster you're responding to doesn't understand the difference between information actually being hidden and not knowing the rulebook?

Hecaton wrote:

 kodos wrote:
A: there is a hidden hand of cards

B: but no one uses this, I cannot proof it but otherwise my point would be invalid, so most people don't use it

No, I can prove that almost no one uses the Tempest of War deck.

I'd be genuinely interested in how you'd go about proving that.

 JNAProductions wrote:

PenitentJake wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
There's a difference between "Has access to the information, but doesn't know it," and "Doesn't have access to the information at all."

Agreed.

So what do YOU think about Tempest of War?

Haven't tried it, so no real comment.

From what I know, it changes 40k from 100% information available, to only most of it available. It's still an entirely different beast than Magic.

As tempest of war has no hand cards like some maelstrom variants and no deck building component, there is no hidden information.
You know everything about your opponent's active objectives and deck, besides the order. The decks are functionally identically with those d66 tables, which are random, but not hidden.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blndmage wrote:
Having just endured the last 5 pages at once, I have a thought re the 40k single game per opponent per round vs MTG "best of 3" per opponent per round.

What if you ran 501 point "best of 3" per round for an event (501 to be technically Incursion, and thus not force folks into only 1 patrol, but still small and fast, extra CP would help too)? Would that be roughly the same as a 2000 point round?

I feel like the smaller boards would be a huge plus. Also 3 games on the same terrain could mean you choose a different deployment zone, let alone deployment style.

In theory, yes.

In practice, 40k tends to have an overhead for each game which makes 500 point games not take half as long as 1000 point games or take a quarter of the time of a 2000 point game.

There also is the issue with 500 point games being extremely repetitive because most armies just don't have that many options to build a list out of 500 points and there is just so much you can do with four units.

Slipspace wrote:

I'd be genuinely interested in how you'd go about proving that.

Why would that be hard? Take a representative sample of 40k players, ask them questions. It's not the kind of survey question someone is likely to lie about.

Hecaton wrote:
You are aware that the poster you're responding to doesn't understand the difference between information actually being hidden and not knowing the rulebook?

I wouldn't be responding to PentinentJake if I didn't care for his opinion


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nou wrote:
The funniest thing in the last part of this discussion, is that „perfect information” and „complete information” are two, completely separate qualities, but some of you mix the two freely. That the term „gameplay” encompasses all structured decisions that follow the rules of the game and that includes the first, simultaneous move of deck/list composition in games with deck/list building element, and simultaneous moves are always hidden information, but some of you exclude this move from the „gameplay” just to „win the discussion on the interwebz”, because it disproves their point. (A hint: the most widely known simultaneous move game is rock/paper/scissors, a reference every 40k player understands perfectly). And last, but nowhere the least, that there is no academic consensus if games with chance element but otherwise known decision history are or aren’t perfect information games, so I sincerely doubt, that this thread will provide an answer to this question.

I actually read all that up and I think you are just plain wrong and trying to split hairs for the sake of it. List building is not a game of rock-paper-scissors outside of extreme scenarios.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_information
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complete_information

The second article actually quite clearly states that MtG is a game with imperfect but complete information, while 40k is has perfect and complete information.
If tempest of war would hide objectives, you could argue that it would become a game of prefect but incomplete information.

 Dysartes wrote:

Hecaton wrote:
Nah, I admit when I'm wrong.

[Citation required]

well, he did, he just used "people/you" instead of "I/me"

Hecaton wrote:

No, that's not what a lot of people are saying. You're confusing marketing/sales strategy with game design. They're not totally extricable from each other, but those are two different things.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Hecaton wrote:
Why would that be hard? Take a representative sample of 40k players, ask them questions. It's not the kind of survey question someone is likely to lie about.

looking forward to the results of your survey

Hecaton wrote:

Slipspace wrote:

I'd be genuinely interested in how you'd go about proving that.

Why would that be hard? Take a representative sample of 40k players, ask them questions. It's not the kind of survey question someone is likely to lie about.

So what you're saying is, you can't currently prove that almost nobody (subjective) is using tempest of war?

 kodos wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:

Hecaton wrote:
Nah, I admit when I'm wrong.

[Citation required]

well, he did, he just used "people/you" instead of "I/me"

Hecaton wrote:

No, that's not what a lot of people are saying. You're confusing marketing/sales strategy with game design. They're not totally extricable from each other, but those are two different things.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Hecaton wrote:
Why would that be hard? Take a representative sample of 40k players, ask them questions. It's not the kind of survey question someone is likely to lie about.

looking forward to the results of your survey

As well as the methodology etc. Is it the kind of thing someone might lie about? Dont know seems unlikely but is also the sort of thing any survey worth its salt would need to look into.

Would it be too crazy to call it an educated guess?

 BertBert wrote:
Would it be too crazy to call it an educated guess?

Probably not but the poster in question claimed he could prove it. He also claimed to admit when he was wrong. Im sure it is possible to prove or disprove such a claim but i seriously doubt the poster has the resources or frankly, desire to do so. He just doesnt like being called out and is scrambling.

Dai wrote:

 BertBert wrote:
Would it be too crazy to call it an educated guess?

Probably not but the poster in question claimed he could prove it. He also claimed to admit when he was wrong. Im sure it is possible to prove or disprove such a claim but i seriously doubt the poster has the resources or frankly, desire to do so. He just doesnt like being called out and is scrambling.

He also seems to like demanding citations for claims, which is why I thought it was odd that he claimed he could prove it in the first place.

The problem with guesswork is everyone's opinions are inevitably skewed by their local meta. Some people will have a wider pool of different local metas to draw on depending on location, but for the most part everyone is pretty isolated in their own little bubble. That's why I'd always be wary of claims that "nobody" or "everybody" plays a certain way. I've never seen Crusade get beyond 1-2 games where I play, for example, but I'm not going to claim that's the most common result of trying Crusade.

Some people need to learn what variance means and how it's applicable to MtG vs 40k lol.

Technically, MtG at a high level is close to a perfect information game as well. While you don't know what's in a players' hand... you do know what their overall mission is (win condition) if you've done cursory research into the environment... and reading the game state is fairly trivial. These "gotcha" moments translates into "do you have the card to finish this game, or do you not?" moments. Honestly, if you're playing blind into the meta of any CCG, you're doomed. And besides, all of the cards and their texts and their interactions are freely available, why haven't you memorized them all? Decks are generally public knowledge, too?

Memorizing these variables is near impossible, you can only play the numbers. What are you most likely to see, what do you NOT want to see, and how do you play into a lot of the rest of the garbage that exists? Are you sacrificing your general play in order to beat a top threat?

Just like a CCG player can position themselves to give their opponent a different interpretation of the game-state, so can a 40K player. You know what stratagems are at my disposal, you can even force a few plays... but overall, you have no knowledge of when and how a person will deploy a strat. You also have no information on how the dice will play into the game. Will this be the roll with your Fire Dragons where you shout "Yhatzee!" as you roll 5 1's with no Autarch near? Is that the same point where your opponent will choose to turn off your re-rolls with his stratagem? Man, sure would be nice to know that before disembarking them and putting them into what would be an exposed position if they failed to eliminate their target. And a single action like that can domino throughout the turn as you adjust to that unplanned variable.

CCGs and 40K both have this in common: at their core they are a strategy game that has both construction and play elements. They both have unknowns that cannon be planned for (hands vs dice and strats). While a lot of the game is decided before a single die is rolled, those unknowns can present issues that require mental agility to compensate for in the throes of a game (else you dramatically increase your chances of losing).

Are they the exact same? Absolutely not, but at the macro you're creating a list against your "meta", hedging your bets against what you'll face or what you won't face... looking for a list/deck that gives you the best chances to win in that environment. Then you go and play and pretty much hope the RNG generators (shuffling or dice) don't screw you out of a strong finish... and of course build outs in your list/deck to allow you to recover when RNG rears its ugly head. Deck/list consistency (doing what you want to do even when things aren't optimum) and resilience (doing what you want even when facing active adversity) are core concepts used by champions in both systems.

Then we go to the pricing model.

New variables (cards/books) are injected into the system every 3ish months (40K now checks this box with setting books and army rule expansions).

A closed framework to prevent unintended issues from lingering in the environment too long (used to be what Standard was in MtG, and honestly an Edition in 40K plays very close to that feel as lists/rules seem to come and go with edition change).

A mix of new hotness while drawing on nostalgia? Yup, either an old card (or a similar card harkening on nostalgia) will be printed again, given a second lease on life; much in the same way 40K will revive an old unit with new rules or a new print or both. Then just new powerful cards/models that can really shake things up (Primaris?). This keeps the system addictive... how many of us would have fallen off the wagon if the ONLY thing awaiting us was a new book every 3-5 years? Shorten that to 3-5 months, and now people are chomping to get that new injection of hotness into their list. Nothing is static, everything is in motion... even if you're not really getting anywhere.

So at their very core the game spaces are VERY similar... but the systems and products that overlay that core are very different. They obscure things in a way to give them the illusion of being different (and that's important, right?). We have the choice to prefer one set of sheets over another, and that's what makes the system either popular or not. But at the core they are very similar: unpredictable games with a lot of player agency/control over many of the levers (but never ALL) with a rapidly rotating play that is always in flux thus... making people feel like they constantly need to be buying to keep up. Nothing wrong with it, just understand the beast you're attempting to wrangle... and understand the rules it is asking you to play by. Find your spot in that system... and just play however that makes you happy (garage-hammer, locals only, competitive PUGs, traveling to cons... whatever).

I play board games, card games, and war games. I play them all casually. I also play RPGs, but that is always casual, basically. I've experienced Gotchas in each one. Board games generally have less, and are almost fully decided by dice, and very little strategy, in my experience. Card game gotchas are just part of what they are. The strategy is preparing for them, or to deliver them. If someone told me to memorize every legal card in Magic, I'd be dumbfounded. In war games, Gotchas tend to be rare, at least from what I've experienced, with my very limited view. Infinity might have a few, as they're built into the system, but you have to invest into them with points and time. I've done my fair share of Hidden Deployment Infiltration Specialists waiting next to the enemy or objective. But the gotchas there are so limited, and part of the core rules, and you'll see entire chunks of their army missing, and they'll have to either write down the exact spot or ask you to turn around and take a picture of where it is,that you'll know that something is deployed somewhere you don't know.

In 40k, gotchas have none of these drawbacks. It's one of the reasons I stopped playing. The other being how dreadfully boring it is when it's not my turn. I'm sure there are counter arguments to everything I just said, but I started with 40k, and got tired of it pretty fast.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Toofast wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Well if you're completely off guard by someone using a Strat to lower your LD or some garbage like that, I dunno what to tell you.

Again you're cherry picking strats to pretend gotcha moments don't exist. If they don't exist for you, congrats on having the time to sit down and learn 700 stratagems and special rules. For the other 99.9% of the playerbase, they both exist and feel bad when they happen.

Citation needed for the 99% of the playerbase that hadn't memorized Transhuman Physiology and Agents of Vect after they became rules.

Or the real Gotcha special rules like Salamanders rerolling a hit roll! Man that catches me off guard every time!

You play space marines agaisnt my Chaos demons, you decide to cast a buff spell with your librarian and end up periling, you say "sure, i got 4 wounds left, perils can't kill me". I use Daemonic possession and you take 4 mortals from your perils and die.

thats a gotcha.

Will you know in the future? yes, but that doesn't change the fact that its a strat that no one would expect before running into