Friendly games, ethics question

[Rogue]

 

Should I tell my opponent that he's moved his infantry within 24" of my autogun neophytes. Maybe, maybe not - if I've already ensured he knows my basic guns are 24", then he's free to play as he wants.

 

Should I tell him that I can extend the range to 30" via a stratagem, so his carefully measured 26" gap is meaningless? Probably, yes, because he's playing without complete information. And 40k is a war game, not a memory test.

its not a memory test but if the opponent doesn’t ask, that’s on them.

I fully support being honest if an opponent asks a question about a unit, or rules.

But if they don’t care enough to ask, I don’t care enough to volunteer the information.

But doesn't that generate a game environment in which every time I do anything, I have to ask about everything?

 

"I've moved my unit into this ruin. Do you have a rule to extend your range? Do you have a fire out of LoS rule? Do you have the ability to inflict damage just because I'm in a ruin? Can you avoid overwatch because I'm in a ruin? Can you drop in closer than 9" to this unit?..." and on and on and on.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

 

 

Should I tell my opponent that he's moved his infantry within 24" of my autogun neophytes. Maybe, maybe not - if I've already ensured he knows my basic guns are 24", then he's free to play as he wants.

 

Should I tell him that I can extend the range to 30" via a stratagem, so his carefully measured 26" gap is meaningless? Probably, yes, because he's playing without complete information. And 40k is a war game, not a memory test.

its not a memory test but if the opponent doesn’t ask, that’s on them.

I fully support being honest if an opponent asks a question about a unit, or rules.

But if they don’t care enough to ask, I don’t care enough to volunteer the information.

But doesn't that generate a game environment in which every time I do anything, I have to ask about everything?

 

"I've moved my unit into this ruin. Do you have a rule to extend your range? Do you have a fire out of LoS rule? Do you have the ability to inflict damage just because I'm in a ruin? Can you avoid overwatch because I'm in a ruin? Can you drop in closer than 9" to this unit?..." and on and on and on.

why should the game environment put the responsibility of telling someone how to play and what to be careful be placed on the shoulders of the person who is by definition trying to beat you?

 

In this situation for an opponent to know all dangers, the responsibility must fall on one player or the other, and it makes no sense for players to be responsible for the knowledge of their opponents.

 

So yes you can be extra cautious and ask with every move, or you can be reasonable and ask when you’re making big or risky moves.

[Bryan Blaire]

If your main goal in the game is to simply beat the other person, then you aren’t playing a friendly game.

[Beams]

Here's my two cents:

I likely don't own your codex, much less have it memorized.

 

If I do something, like deepstrike with a melee unit next to a unit who has an ability to stop my charge dead in its tracks, I'd appreciate a "Hey man, these guys have a -12 Aura to charges" or a "Hey Man, these guys over here can shoot at anyone who deep strikes nearby". Likewise, I'd do the same, because there are so many factions with so many bespoke rules, it's just nice to get a heads up so it's not a "Gotch'ya! You fell for my trap card!" when the game is supposed to have 0 hidden information.

Edited May 25, 2022 by Beams

[Rogue]

The thing is, 40k isn't chess. In chess, both players know everything about their opponent's pieces' capabilities. We both know what bishops do; we both know about castling. If I only won chess games because my opponent *didn't* know what the pieces did, I wouldn't consider that much of a victory.

 

In fact, when I play against students at our lunch club, some of whom are still learning and forget things like en passant, or who put their queen right in front of my Bishop because they forget it can slide through tight gaps, then I'll point it out - "Are you sure you want to do that?", for example.

 

But I'm still playing to win, and so far I always have. Why? Because my tactical grasp of chess is better than theirs. I win by being better at the game; not because I know the rules and they don't.

 

In 40k, I don't really expect my opponent to know all of the capabilities of my models. I mean, I can't remember them all, and that's before we even think about stratagems. So yes, I could keep quiet, tell myself that it's his responsibility to memorise my codex (and that of every other army represented around our gaming group), and spring unexpected rules to win the game. Or I could level the playing field, make sure we're both playing with full knowledge of the rules, and have a fun game that's decided by the better player.

Edited May 25, 2022 by Rogue

[Valkyrion]

How about a bit of a turn about question;

 

If you are playing a game with Ravenwing, and by the end of turn 3 you realise that you've been taking Invulnerable saves against ALL attacks, not just ranged, but it's hard to qualify how much of an effect it's had, how do you resolve it? This actually happened with me being the accidental cheater, so I'll tell you what I did after you tell me what I should have done and see if the stars align. 

 

I'm sure accidentally cheating has happened at tournament level too, especially if a codex has just been released, so how does it get resolved then? Does the 'cheating' player automatically forfeit? 

For example, a Chaos Knights player going down the wrong Dread tree, or a Tyranid player using a Synaptic Imperative for a model that has been removed. 

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

If your main goal in the game is to simply beat the other person, then you aren’t playing a friendly game.

the whole point of any game is to win.

I don’t use meta lists, but my ultimate goal is still to win.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

How about a bit of a turn about question;

 

If you are playing a game with Ravenwing, and by the end of turn 3 you realise that you've been taking Invulnerable saves against ALL attacks, not just ranged, but it's hard to qualify how much of an effect it's had, how do you resolve it? This actually happened with me being the accidental cheater, so I'll tell you what I did after you tell me what I should have done and see if the stars align.

 

I'm sure accidentally cheating has happened at tournament level too, especially if a codex has just been released, so how does it get resolved then? Does the 'cheating' player automatically forfeit?

For example, a Chaos Knights player going down the wrong Dread tree, or a Tyranid player using a Synaptic Imperative for a model that has been removed.

that’s a wholly different set of circumstances that comes down to you and your opponent coming to an agreement that seems fair to both sides

[gideon stargreave]

Honestly I can't see the difference, but that said I don't play 40k competitively. It's a simulator for me, not a competition

[Valkyrion]

It's not really that different, it's just that one is an accidental misreading of the rules and one is working on the unreasonable assumption that your opponent knows every rule available to you. 

[Tyriks]

 

If your main goal in the game is to simply beat the other person, then you aren’t playing a friendly game.

the whole point of any game is to win.

I don’t use meta lists, but my ultimate goal is still to win.

That's a point to many games, but not the only point to every game. I would rather have fun than win in most games, and sometimes losing spectacularly is fun. Beating an opponent on a technicality rarely is. So I don't think winning is "the whole point" at all. That said, I still want to win and go into a game trying to win.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

It's not really that different, it's just that one is an accidental misreading of the rules and one is working on the unreasonable assumption that your opponent knows every rule available to you.

no one is assuming the opponent knows all the rules available. You don’t need to know every rule of every faction to make smart plays. Strats don’t make smart plays dumb, they make risky plays riskier.

[Valkyrion]

So what is it you're asking?

[Bryan Blaire]

 

 

If your main goal in the game is to simply beat the other person, then you aren’t playing a friendly game.

the whole point of any game is to win.

I don’t use meta lists, but my ultimate goal is still to win.

That's a point to many games, but not the only point to every game. I would rather have fun than win in most games, and sometimes losing spectacularly is fun. Beating an opponent on a technicality rarely is. So I don't think winning is "the whole point" at all. That said, I still want to win and go into a game trying to win.

 

The “whole point” of any (meaning every) game is not exclusively to win - there are cooperative games out there.  Failing to understand that shows insight into the mindset of the person making the statement.

 

40K can be played as many different things.

 

If your goal is to give a beat down to an opponent due to ignorance, then you aren’t a friend and aren’t playing a friendly game.

 

The responsibility that GW states in the Matched Play section on Page 14, while not a rule, has good bearing on things here: “That said, it is still the responsibility of all players to ensure that everything that happens is sportsmanlike and ‘in the spirit of the game’.”

[MARK0SIAN]

 

If your main goal in the game is to simply beat the other person, then you aren’t playing a friendly game.

the whole point of any game is to win.

I don’t use meta lists, but my ultimate goal is still to win.

I think it would be helpful if you defined what a friendly game means to you. If, in your view, it’s only different from a competitive game because it’s not in a tournament and you aren’t meta chasing or net listing then I think your definition is probably different from a lot of people in this thread, which is fine but would explain the different takes.

 

For me I’d define a friendly game as an almost cooperative experience where the main goal is for both players to have fun. Someone will win and someone will lose but it almost doesn’t matter so long as no one lost because of a feels bad or gotcha moment. When me and my friends play in a friendly game we almost treat each other’s turn as a shared turn, offering ideas and help even against our own side.

 

From my perspective I’d say the kind of game you’re describing is still a competitive one, even though it’s not in an actual tournament.

 

For what it’s worth, I do think 9th edition has muddied the waters in regards to friendly games though. There’s just so many stratagems and buffs layered on top of one another that they almost always feel like a gotcha moment when you’re on the receiving end of them. Using any of them feels unfriendly to me :(

[RWJP]

I don't play super-competitively, so I personally always advise/remind my opponents of any potential "Gotcha" moments (such as Auspex Scan) and also of any important points the might have forgotten (such as if they fire at a unit that I have previously put Transhuman Physiology on). 

Even though Auspex Scan and Transhuman are "well known", there are so many rules to remember, plus it's easy to forget in the heat of the moment.

Additionally, if I'm playing with a regular opponent and have bought along a new unit that they have not seen me use before, I would generally provide them more details/reminders of those.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

 

 

If your main goal in the game is to simply beat the other person, then you aren’t playing a friendly game.

the whole point of any game is to win.

I don’t use meta lists, but my ultimate goal is still to win.

That's a point to many games, but not the only point to every game. I would rather have fun than win in most games, and sometimes losing spectacularly is fun. Beating an opponent on a technicality rarely is. So I don't think winning is "the whole point" at all. That said, I still want to win and go into a game trying to win.

using an army or unit rule isn’t a technicality. It’s playing the game.

 

Losing because one model wasn’t fully painted, when you were ahead by 9 points is losing on a technicality.

 

One is actual game design the other is a tactic to sell more paint and brushes.

Edited May 25, 2022 by Inquisitor_Lensoven

[MegaVolt87]

 

It's not really that different, it's just that one is an accidental misreading of the rules and one is working on the unreasonable assumption that your opponent knows every rule available to you.

no one is assuming the opponent knows all the rules available. You don’t need to know every rule of every faction to make smart plays. Strats don’t make smart plays dumb, they make risky plays riskier.

 

 

If I know your army better than you and make sure you don't get to play your big plays, are you still having fun on your end? Are we still having a friendly game? Also just confirming if I drop unknown army rules and mechanics on you by my faction you won't feel upset or put out by that? I would like a definite answer here. 

Edited May 25, 2022 by MegaVolt87

[Ioldanach]

For me, all games are friendly, even those in a competitive environment such as a tournament.
 
Warhammer 40,000 isn’t just “a game.” It’s a hobby of which the game is only one component. Other components include artistry, lore, and being social. My approach to the game is to strive for as much of each as I can, within whatever limitations I may have. When I play a game, I’m there to play well, hopefully to win, to push nice looking miniatures around a nice looking table so that the whole is somewhat immersive and aesthetically pleasing, and to ensure that whomever I’m playing with has as good of a time as possible. I still want to win, but not at the expense of my opponent’s enjoyment. It’s possible to lose a game and to still have an enjoyable time. That doesn’t mean that I’m going to throw a game just so that my opponent has a “good time,” but I’ll do my best to make sure that they don’t make mistakes out of ignorance.
 
This game is so complex that it is unreasonable to expect everyone to know everything. Even experienced players have gaps in their knowledge. I’ve been involved in the hobby for quite some time, but I don’t have the presumptuousness to think that I know everything (there are huge gaps in my knowledge); and if my opponent is doing something risky that might be out of ignorance, I’m going to let them know. I wouldn’t do that in real combat, but Warhammer 40,000 is a hobby. It’s about having a fun overall experience (and if you can win, even better, but you should be able to have fun even when you lose).
 
Outside of a tournament I might play against someone that likes to play “gotcha” with me, but only once. After I’ve figured out that they’re a cutthroat player that puts more emphasis on winning than everyone having a fun time, I’ll probably refuse to play against them after that. Conversely, someone that works with me to make the overall experience fun for all is someone that I’ll gladly play again, even if I lose. And I do my best to be that person for my opponents. Obviously I can’t pick my opponents in a highly competitive tournament, but I’ll still do my best to make tournament games enjoyable for my opponent (even when I’m doing my best to beat them).
 
The ethics to me are simple: Make the game fun for everyone, even when you’re trying to win. Capitalizing on rules ignorance goes against this concept.

[Sothalor]

Is not one of the prime overarching "objectives" of any match to play in such a way that others want to play with you again?

 

Thus, there's no one size fits all answer. Some nuance and social deduction and communication needs to go into it; some people you play with may want a no-holds-barred, "tough lesson by making that move into this combo" game and that's just their preferred method to play. Others may well prefer more active engagement and disclosure, more open and collaborative.

 

There's always some kind of negotiation, explicit and implicit, in any sort of social activity.

[Tyriks]

 

 

 

If your main goal in the game is to simply beat the other person, then you aren’t playing a friendly game.

the whole point of any game is to win.

I don’t use meta lists, but my ultimate goal is still to win.

That's a point to many games, but not the only point to every game. I would rather have fun than win in most games, and sometimes losing spectacularly is fun. Beating an opponent on a technicality rarely is. So I don't think winning is "the whole point" at all. That said, I still want to win and go into a game trying to win.

using an army or unit rule isn’t a technicality. It’s playing the game.

Losing because one model wasn’t fully painted, when you were ahead by 9 points is losing on a technicality.

One is actual game design the other is a tactic to sell more paint and brushes.

Sorry frater, but you are responding to a claim I never made. I didn't say anything about using an army or unit rule. I said winning isn't the whole point, which you had claimed. It can be the whole point for you, but that's a choice you've made, not an inherent part of the game.

Edited May 26, 2022 by Nemesor Tyriks

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

 

 

 

It's not really that different, it's just that one is an accidental misreading of the rules and one is working on the unreasonable assumption that your opponent knows every rule available to you.

no one is assuming the opponent knows all the rules available. You don’t need to know every rule of every faction to make smart plays. Strats don’t make smart plays dumb, they make risky plays riskier.

If I know your army better than you and make sure you don't get to play your big plays, are you still having fun on your end? Are we still having a friendly game? Also just confirming if I drop unknown army rules and mechanics on you by my faction you won't feel upset or put out by that? I would like a definite answer here.

I might feel bummed same way as if you wipe a squad in a single round of combat or shooting but no I’m not going to be butthurt if you drop something on me I didn’t expect.

I know I don’t know every rule, so if I get surprised I’m not bothered.

[gideon stargreave]

I just rewatched the video and have had some more time to think.

I started the hobby around 4th edition fantasy. This was a very silly game and gotchas were a part of it, magic items were kept secret and you could end up with goblins keeping prince tyrion locked in a challenge for the whole game unable to strike. This was part of the fun. Charging units and not knowing if fanatics would come out and smash your chaos knights to pieces etc. It was dramatic, and while winning was nice, a fun loss was also cool. This was true in 2nd Ed 40k too, where strange combat mechanics could mean that a commisar might smash a hive tyrant into the ground after it had killed every member of a platoon (but he would get loads of extra dice by the final round of combat for outnumbering his opponent)

I think that this auspex scan rule is the same, and depending on delivery could be really fun

"the devastator sergeant hears a ping on his auspex followed by a ruffling and clicking of mechanical feathers and he laughs.

" contempt is my shield, faith is my sword" he shouts

"open fire" he says to his men

The filthy xenos turn to paste

"i have only hate for eldar tricks""

 

As long as both players agree that they want drama and tension and cinemtics more than a victory, it doesn't matter what happens to those deep striking eldar.

 

Compare to

The eldar deepstrike

"stifled giggle"

Card goes on table

"nuh nuh nuh nuh nuh"

Roflstomp

 

40k is not a great tactical combat game, not like chess or go or even checkers, it is a fun battle simulator, a what if, a ttrpg in gilded masque, win or lose it doesn't matter, chase those stories.

 

That time my death company dread immobilized itself turn one, that time a gretchin took tycho's last wound, that time olianus Pius actually killed horus besides the corpse of sanguinius.

 

Ork players know this instinctively.

 

Play with grace and charm, and encourage your opponent (and yourself) to enjoy even defeat, even destruction, even annihilation, for we all know the stories, the characters that die futile deaths and bear it with honour, or spite or joy are the ones we like best.

 

Do whatever you need to do, the both of you, to feel the adrenaline of a last stand, a desperate defense, or the turning of the tide, sometimes it takes secrecy, and others a massaging of the rules or an ego or a general's expertise (or lack).

 

In the grimdark future of the 41st millennium, you will not be missed, but your stories will live on forever. How do you want them to be told?

 

I recommend a read of this book

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finite_and_Infinite_Games

Edited May 26, 2022 by gideon stargreave

[Rik Lightstar]

 

 

 

If your main goal in the game is to simply beat the other person, then you aren’t playing a friendly game.

the whole point of any game is to win.

I don’t use meta lists, but my ultimate goal is still to win.

That's a point to many games, but not the only point to every game. I would rather have fun than win in most games, and sometimes losing spectacularly is fun. Beating an opponent on a technicality rarely is. So I don't think winning is "the whole point" at all. That said, I still want to win and go into a game trying to win.

using an army or unit rule isn’t a technicality. It’s playing the game.

 

Losing because one model wasn’t fully painted, when you were ahead by 9 points is losing on a technicality.

 

One is actual game design the other is a tactic to sell more paint and brushes.

Your entire premise seems to be that it's every player's responsibility to know every Codex in preparation for their games so they don't get caught out by rules and lose.

 

The painting score is in the main rulebook, if someone can't be bothered to finish their army in preparation for a game they don't deserve those 10 points. They should have done their painting.

 

Rik

[Inquisitor lorr]

To the OP, I really don’t understand the purpose of this thread, but in a (probably vain) attempt to engage and understand, my views are as follows.

 

Your definitions of ‘friendly’ are skewed way beyond any level of objectivity. You are fundamentally placing winning over fun, and whilst it may not quite be WAAC it’s not far off - ‘win regardless of whether you have fun’ seems more appropriate.

 

I also really don’t understand the motivation for that - do you derive joy or a feeling of accomplishment from beating someone in a game of toy soldiers who overlooked a rule, or, perhaps never even knew about that rule? (Genuine question - not a dig).

 

Similarly, when a game can take 3 to 4 hours, and might be the only game someone plays in several months, do you really want it to come down to a ‘gotcha’ moment?

 

Also, the ‘treat adults like adults’ comment - really? There are varying degrees of intelligence, engagement, common sense, street smarts etc - just because someone can scam a pensioner (also an adult) doesn’t mean they can or should. Getting away with something because you can and the other person is an ‘adult’ seems a bit of poor excuse for poor behaviour.

 

Isn’t it easier for you to simply frame your mindset as I’m going to treat every game as competitive and try my best to win. I know if you invited me for a friendly game and played the way you have described, I would never play you again.