Friendly games, ethics question

[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.

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.

I'm not entirely convinced you are having fun, nor is the game a friendly one then at that point based on that response.

[Halandaar]

It doesn't matter how many times you state "it's not a memory test" when in every other statement you are insisting that your opponent know everything there is to know about your army otherwise you will happily wombo-combo them into oblivion.

 

It might not be your "responsibility" to tell your opponent everything they need to know to make informed decisions, but it is your responsibility (by way of social contract) to make a "friendly" game friendly and fun for both participants. If your main objective is victory, rather than enjoyment, then it fundamentally isn't a friendly game.

Edited May 27, 2022 by Halandaar

[Emurian]

Gotcha is always bad sportsmanship.  I always err on the side of kindness and tell my opponent about combos and Strats ahead of time that they should watch out for.  9th is an opaque mess designed to not be fully absorbed by any one person. I feel like it the only responsible way. 

 

Not to mention there is no honour or education in winning vs an opponent who made a bad call due to ignorance.  I want to beat my opponents at their best, silly mistakes and lapses are nothing to hang a hat on and mar the shared narrative.  Elevate you opponents and you elevate yourself.  This is the way.  

Any competitive MtG player would disagree here. The best learning master is fumbling hard in a game so youll never forget about it.

 

Regarding 40k I have the same mindset. If I get f'ed over by some strat I didn't know about so be it. Ill never make that same mistake twice. In my group if you ask a question you get a full answer on said question, its just not that we will elaborate on other stuff out of our own. This in order to prevent input from the opponent steering the choices of the other player.

 

Good example irl: Tau player at start of 9th asked me: Bjorn which was the Space Marine unit which doesn't allow me to setup within 12'' with infiltrators?

*Pointing at Infiltrators due to their scramblers: These scramblers say you can't deploy within 12''*

*Tau player proceeds to infiltrate within 12'' of another unit*

*Activate Auspex scan to get a free round of shooting with the nearby unit*

*Tau player getting salty: I asked you which unit I wasn't allowed to deploy within 12.

*Me: Yup, and the Infiltrators have said rule. You have the option to deploy within 12'' of al other units. I can not read your mind your referring to a stratagem.

 

-Context: We know eachother over 18 years so this is no big deal to happen in our group. Its the best example weve had on the table where a person asks X but they mean Y. I can not read his mind. He got the answer on the question he asked. Don't expect me to come up with stuff thats not tied to the question. 

 

 

We keep referring to this past situation in the group when discussing rules during games. People need to be clear what they mean. 

 

[Beams]

 

Gotcha is always bad sportsmanship.  I always err on the side of kindness and tell my opponent about combos and Strats ahead of time that they should watch out for.  9th is an opaque mess designed to not be fully absorbed by any one person. I feel like it the only responsible way. 

 

Not to mention there is no honour or education in winning vs an opponent who made a bad call due to ignorance.  I want to beat my opponents at their best, silly mistakes and lapses are nothing to hang a hat on and mar the shared narrative.  Elevate you opponents and you elevate yourself.  This is the way.  

Any competitive MtG player would disagree here. The best learning master is fumbling hard in a game so youll never forget about it.

 

Regarding 40k I have the same mindset. If I get f'ed over by some strat I didn't know about so be it. Ill never make that same mistake twice. In my group if you ask a question you get a full answer on said question, its just not that we will elaborate on other stuff out of our own. This in order to prevent input from the opponent steering the choices of the other player.

 

Good example irl: Tau player at start of 9th asked me: Bjorn which was the Space Marine unit which doesn't allow me to setup within 12'' with infiltrators?

*Pointing at Infiltrators due to their scramblers: These scramblers say you can't deploy within 12''*

*Tau player proceeds to infiltrate within 12'' of another unit*

*Activate Auspex scan to get a free round of shooting with the nearby unit*

*Tau player getting salty: I asked you which unit I wasn't allowed to deploy within 12.

*Me: Yup, and the Infiltrators have said rule. You have the option to deploy within 12'' of al other units. I can not read your mind your referring to a stratagem.

 

-Context: We know eachother over 18 years so this is no big deal to happen in our group. Its the best example weve had on the table where a person asks X but they mean Y. I can not read his mind. He got the answer on the question he asked. Don't expect me to come up with stuff thats not tied to the question. 

 

 

We keep referring to this past situation in the group when discussing rules during games. People need to be clear what they mean. 

 

 

 

Look, as an outsider, I would advise you not to tell that story. It makes you look like the jerk.

I don't know you very well, but I would not play against you.

 

How hard would it have been to go: "These guys stop you, everyone else can shoot for 1 CP within 12"

 

When I play, I make sure to tell my opponents my rules, because god knows most people don't have the Sisters Codex memorized (I don't) and shouldn't be penalized for not buying and studying a book for an army they don't play.

Edited May 27, 2022 by Beams

[Bryan Blaire]

Look, as an outsider, I would advise you not to tell that story. It makes you look like the jerk.

I don't know you very well, but I would not play against you.

 

How hard would it have been to go: "These guys stop you, everyone else can shoot for 1 CP within 12"

 

When I play, I make sure to tell my opponents my rules, because god knows most people don't have the Sisters Codex memorized (I don't) and shouldn't be penalized for not buying and studying a book for an army they don't play.

It’s more the way it’s told with the seeming “Hah Hah, you have fallen for my evil trap with my shooting strategem” from the smarmy “I cannot read your mind referring to a strategem” - I agree that you couldn’t read his mind, but at the same time, it wouldn’t have been hard to go “Anything else you think you might need to know about 12” ranges with my guys?” Or “I do have some strategems that affect units within 12 - 18 inches”, since clearly there was a range concern around the 12 inches…

 

It’s not hand-holding and still lets them make the decision to ask more - if they don’t, or don’t consider the range you have offered, then it’s on them.

 

There again, when playing an unfamiliar Codex, there’s nothing wrong with going “Hey, before we start, give me a run down of your specific rules and strategies your guys can use…”

[Halandaar]

*Me: Yup, and the Infiltrators have said rule. You have the option to deploy within 12'' of al other units. I can not read your mind your referring to a stratagem.

 

Claiming you "can't read his mind" is totally disingenuous when he's specifically asked you about where he can and can't deep strike within 12" of your units. You knew full well that stratagem was relevant and opted not to say a few extra words just to preserve the "gotcha" moment.

[Tyriks]

My group will ask people not to point out issues like that if they are practicing for an event or just want to challenge themselves. Otherwise we earn each other. Everyone's happy that way.

[Rogue]

And I think not telling people stuff can be a valid way to play. As long as both players are happy to go that way.

 

For example, I can imagine a scenario where both players are going up against a codex that they've not faced before, and decide that from a narrative perspective, they prefer have no prior knowledge of the foe or their capabilities. Which could be fun. And if that works for you, great.

 

Or, in a less fluffy way, the school of hard knocks is a thing, and as Emurian says, getting caught out once is a good (if bitter) teacher. If a no-mercy tournament approach is your thing, and importantly is also your opponent's thing, then hurrah for you and off you go.

 

But I feel like in both those cases, you'd want to know that your opponent is happy to play that way, rather than just going "That's how I roll, like it or lump it".

[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.

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

ive repeatedly stated that’s not what I’m saying. That’s actually the exact opposite of what I’ve been saying.

Having the humility to acknowledge you don’t know everything about an opposing army means you should not be getting upset when someone does something you didn’t know they could do.

[Tawnis]

For me (and maybe this comes from being a 20+ year veteran of MTG) I like not knowing every little thing my opponent can do. In magic, it was pretty easy to tell what kind of deck your opponent was playing in the first turn or two, but there was always a players unique spin on it that could hit you with something you don't expect. For me at least, part of the immersion is the enemy general throwing something at you that you didn't predict and adapting to it on the fly. You know generally what they can do from their army, but not all the details, and you learn from experience; once you get got, you'll never get got in the same way again and it becomes a cool story. Even if it results in a rout and a loss, I personally don't have a problem with that as I still find the experience enjoyable, war isn't fair, and I find it more immersive that I just get skunked sometimes.

 

That being said, everyone is there to have fun and not everyone thinks the same way as I do. I ask my opponent before that game, "how much of what my army can do would you like to know?" and accommodate them. When I'm teaching people, I go beyond that and go over the options of what I could do in response to what they are doing to help them learn the game. 

 

At the end of the day, just figure out how the two of you are going to have the most fun.

Edited May 27, 2022 by Tawnis

[Jorin Helm-splitter]

Yeah I agree with Tawnis it's up to both players make a fun experience. Just state your expectations and ask about theirs if your playing a friendly game. If the expectations are reasonably close go ahead play and if not you saved yourself some misery.

 

That said if you want gotcha hammer don't whine if they get you. It's becoming a pet peeve of mine, now that I found a store with a community.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

I really don’t understand a lot of you.

So you don’t mind having an enemy unit blast one of your units off the board in a single round of shooting…but only if they don’t use a stratagem you didn’t know about to do it…

Sure I can have fun with a loss if it was a close game, but the goal of the game is still to win. No one plays a game with absolutely no desire to win and to simply ‘have fun’ without winning.

 

The idea that I’d be extra upset that someone out played me using a special rule I didn’t know about, seems like a very high level of fragility, and childishness.

I don’t know every special rule of the game and that’s ok.

Someone might use a special rule I don’t know about to my detriment in a game, and that’s ok.

 

Hell my regular opponent has no issues with the way I play and has had fun with all of our games, only reason we won’t be playing together again is because he low key threatened my pets in my home.

Edited May 27, 2022 by Inquisitor_Lensoven

[Brother Casman]

[snip]

Sure I can have fun with a loss if it was a close game, but the goal of the game is still to win. No one plays a game with absolutely no desire to win and to simply ‘have fun’ without winning.

[snip]

 

I certainly don't speak for everyone else, but I have absolutely gone into games without wanting to win them. The fun is more important to me.

 

And that's fine - not everyone plays the same games that I do. Ideally you'll find opponents that approach the game in the same way you do and you can play on.

[Azekai]

For me (and maybe this comes from being a 20+ year veteran of MTG) I like not knowing every little thing my opponent can do. In magic, it was pretty easy to tell what kind of deck your opponent was playing in the first turn or two, but there was always a players unique spin on it that could hit you with something you don't expect.

I think with your background that makes sense. However, many 40k players *don't* like gotcha mechanics. Controlling blue deck shenanigans from MtG or Yugioh trap cards have not been a thing in 40k until very, very recently. In the last few years we have had increasingly complex and potent stratagems and traits. Even in early 8th, you could interrupt combat... and that was about it. Now, there are a plethora of abilities that interrupt the flow of the game with powerful exceptions. Adding to the frustration is that the game is changing fairly rapidly between codex releases and FAQs and GW has *not* been gentle with the buff and nerf bats.

 

I know there are people who win games because they eat, sleep and breathe 40k. For a lot of top players and channels and their followers, this is a way of life. But a lot of us do not want to pour through FAQs and keep track of the literally hundreds of stratagems, it's anti-fun; and when the game (or really, other players) punish us for lacking comprehensive knowledge of all things current ed 40k, it is a huge turn off.

 

Once again, this game is an exhausting beast sometimes, and the best way to tackle it is together... 

 

 

 

[MARK0SIAN]

I really don’t understand a lot of you.

So you don’t mind having an enemy unit blast one of your units off the board in a single round of shooting…but only if they don’t use a stratagem you didn’t know about to do it…

Sure I can have fun with a loss if it was a close game, but the goal of the game is still to win. No one plays a game with absolutely no desire to win and to simply ‘have fun’ without winning.

 

The idea that I’d be extra upset that someone out played me using a special rule I didn’t know about, seems like a very high level of fragility, and childishness.

I don’t know every special rule of the game and that’s ok.

Someone might use a special rule I don’t know about to my detriment in a game, and that’s ok.

 

Hell my regular opponent has no issues with the way I play and has had fun with all of our games, only reason we won’t be playing together again is because he low key threatened my pets in my home.

There’s nothing wrong with wanting to play that way or enjoying that kind of game but it’s not what a lot of people here would classify as a friendly game, as many of them have stated that winning is not the priority in such a game for them. A game that isn’t a friendly game does not mean it’s an UN-friendly, just a game like you’re describing where the main priority is a win.

 

Your original question was in the context of a friendly game so you shouldn’t be surprised that people don’t consider nasty surprises in terms of rules they didn’t know about as being in the spirit of a friendly game.

 

No one would have a problem with what you’re describing if you weren’t trying to classify it as a friendly game instead of a competitive one.

[Emurian]

Tbh I dont care how people perceive me online. Snowflake moral high ground arguments are not cutting it for me. Theres a clear cultural difference between USA and NL ppl. As stated we know eachother for 18 years, weve played hundreds of games vs eachother and this just so happened to be an example where he was on the receiving end for the lack if knowledge. He faced marines at least 20x after that battle and never made that mistake again. TBH I could have redeployed my units for 2 cp and whiped out the same unit with just as much ease so it wasnt a big game changer.

 

My clique plays together for over 18 years and were very wary letting anyone else mingle with our group. We only play at our homes. We dont go to gaming stores so we can enforce our own "rules" like presenting our lists a week before we play and the opponent can request for minor changes if desired, were aiming for 50/50 games like this rather then showing up with lists and playing rock paper scissors. You have a week beforehand to discuss new units, inquire about them and prepare aside the option to ask for clarifaction during the match.

 

My whole group shares this mindset hence it works for us. It might not be the funniest thing to experience in the moment but examples like these do linger in our minds for future games, just like in 4th edition player A asked B what the strenght of a warlock is (3) proceeds to charge with a dread and the A player going, rolling 9+d6 due to witchblade. Ever1 in the group remembers this moment and ever since ppl worded their questions better.

 

Spoonfeeding someone will not help them, they will remember said action for that moment but most likely make the same mistake in another game. A painfull mistake stays etched in their memories for years.

 

Most of us also dabble with MTG, mostly competitive Legacy where you get f'd over by silver bullet cards on a regular basis. Thus were used to the "pain is the best teacher" mindset.

 

So call me a jerk idc, in the end my tau mate got better due to being punished for his mistake. Dont play a competitive game if your not willing to bite through the learning curve.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

 

[snip]

Sure I can have fun with a loss if it was a close game, but the goal of the game is still to win. No one plays a game with absolutely no desire to win and to simply ‘have fun’ without winning.

[snip]

 

I certainly don't speak for everyone else, but I have absolutely gone into games without wanting to win them. The fun is more important to me.

 

And that's fine - not everyone plays the same games that I do. Ideally you'll find opponents that approach the game in the same way you do and you can play on.

i am not trying to be rude or anything, but this just sounds like something a person who doesn’t have a history of winning would say.

 

If the fun comes from the socialization then it has nothing to do with the game in the first place

[Rogue]

For me (and maybe this comes from being a 20+ year veteran of MTG) I like not knowing every little thing my opponent can do. In magic, it was pretty easy to tell what kind of deck your opponent was playing in the first turn or two, but there was always a players unique spin on it that could hit you with something you don't expect. For me at least, part of the immersion is the enemy general throwing something at you that you didn't predict and adapting to it on the fly. You know generally what they can do from their army, but not all the details, and you learn from experience; once you get got, you'll never get got in the same way again and it becomes a cool story. Even if it results in a rout and a loss, I personally don't have a problem with that as I still find the experience enjoyable, war isn't fair, and I find it more immersive that I just get skunked sometimes.

 

That being said, everyone is there to have fun and not everyone thinks the same way as I do. I ask my opponent before that game, "how much of what my army can do would you like to know?" and accommodate them. When I'm teaching people, I go beyond that and go over the options of what I could do in response to what they are doing to help them learn the game.

 

At the end of the day, just figure out how the two of you are going to have the most fun.

The difference with Magic, though, is that games are much shorter (in my experience, which is limited to Arena online) - so if someone whacks me with a Gotcha, or something I just couldn't fight against, it was no big deal to shrug it off and start another game. 10 minutes lost, lessons learnt, move on.

 

But a turn 2 gotcha moment in 40k comes after all the set-up, deployment, and general game-playbthat could take a couple of hours. It's much harder to shrug it off at that point, and not often practical to re-rack and go again.

 

I mean, stuff happens - dice roll odd, flukes happen, and sometimes a game can collapse one way or another without any kind of help from stratagems or gotchas. And sometimes you just have to suck that up and get on with it. But a couple of hours 'wasted' because someone didn't want to mention a rule they were always planning to spring on you doesn't leave a good taste.

[Brother Casman]

[snip]

i am not trying to be rude or anything, but this just sounds like something a person who doesn’t have a history of winning would say.

 

If the fun comes from the socialization then it has nothing to do with the game in the first place

These are interesting assumptions that you've made. I'm curious as to why you've made them?

[MARK0SIAN]

 

For me (and maybe this comes from being a 20+ year veteran of MTG) I like not knowing every little thing my opponent can do. In magic, it was pretty easy to tell what kind of deck your opponent was playing in the first turn or two, but there was always a players unique spin on it that could hit you with something you don't expect. For me at least, part of the immersion is the enemy general throwing something at you that you didn't predict and adapting to it on the fly. You know generally what they can do from their army, but not all the details, and you learn from experience; once you get got, you'll never get got in the same way again and it becomes a cool story. Even if it results in a rout and a loss, I personally don't have a problem with that as I still find the experience enjoyable, war isn't fair, and I find it more immersive that I just get skunked sometimes.

 

That being said, everyone is there to have fun and not everyone thinks the same way as I do. I ask my opponent before that game, "how much of what my army can do would you like to know?" and accommodate them. When I'm teaching people, I go beyond that and go over the options of what I could do in response to what they are doing to help them learn the game.

 

At the end of the day, just figure out how the two of you are going to have the most fun.

The difference with Magic, though, is that games are much shorter (in my experience, which is limited to Arena online) - so if someone whacks me with a Gotcha, or something I just couldn't fight against, it was no big deal to shrug it off and start another game. 10 minutes lost, lessons learnt, move on.

 

But a turn 2 gotcha moment in 40k comes after all the set-up, deployment, and general game-playbthat could take a couple of hours. It's much harder to shrug it off at that point, and not often practical to re-rack and go again.

 

I mean, stuff happens - dice roll odd, flukes happen, and sometimes a game can collapse one way or another without any kind of help from stratagems or gotchas. And sometimes you just have to suck that up and get on with it. But a couple of hours 'wasted' because someone didn't want to mention a rule they were always planning to spring on you doesn't leave a good taste.

Indeed! In addition, the amount of prep that goes into getting an army ready for a game including building and painting is orders of magnitude more than for a game like MtG.

 

I generally find comparing 40K to something like Magic a bit weird. They’re vastly different, even though current 40K feels like it’s leaning more in that direction with the stratagems.

[Halandaar]

i am not trying to be rude or anything, but this just sounds like something a person who doesn’t have a history of winning would say.

 

If the fun comes from the socialization then it has nothing to do with the game in the first place

The dictionary definition of a game is "an activity one engages in for amusement or fun".

 

That you apparently derive fun only from victory doesn't mean you get to be the arbiter of what other people enjoy.

 

I for one would much rather lose an interesting battle that had great moments and told a good story than win a by-numbers game of Meta-Hammer 40000 with an optimised spammy list and the correct application of obnoxious combos.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

 

[snip]

i am not trying to be rude or anything, but this just sounds like something a person who doesn’t have a history of winning would say.

 

If the fun comes from the socialization then it has nothing to do with the game in the first place

These are interesting assumptions that you've made. I'm curious as to why you've made them?

because in my experience people with a history of winning don’t say things like that

[Brother Casman]

[snip]

because in my experience people with a history of winning don’t say things like that

Is it possible that your experience is limited in this regard?

[Jorin Helm-splitter]

I really don’t understand a lot of you.

So you don’t mind having an enemy unit blast one of your units off the board in a single round of shooting…but only if they don’t use a stratagem you didn’t know about to do it…

Sure I can have fun with a loss if it was a close game, but the goal of the game is still to win. No one plays a game with absolutely no desire to win and to simply ‘have fun’ without winning.

 

The idea that I’d be extra upset that someone out played me using a special rule I didn’t know about, seems like a very high level of fragility, and childishness.

I don’t know every special rule of the game and that’s ok.

Someone might use a special rule I don’t know about to my detriment in a game, and that’s ok.

 

Hell my regular opponent has no issues with the way I play and has had fun with all of our games, only reason we won’t be playing together again is because he low key threatened my pets in my home.

 

In this edition of 40k I don't mind if a unit gets blown off the table in a single round of shooting, that's normal lol. Heck if only one got blown off the table I'm probably going win the game. As far as stratagems are concerned, I don't really care but that's part of my particular expectations. The main reason I don't get mad is because I don't view 40k as a competitive game, the balance is horrendous. Fractions shouldn't have 70%-win rates and we've had them for long stretches over multiple editions now. I play 40k because I like the setting, the models look cool, are fun to build/paint, suggesting unit changes is fun, I have a lot invested in the game, and I like rolling a fist full of dice. If every fraction had between a 45%-55% win rate I'd probably have a different viewpoint. I put a lot of time in 2D fighters, and if you beat me, I'm going to watch the replays to figure out why, because you either used the system mechanics better, understood the matchup better, executed better, or handled the lag better. Besides the lag, I will try to lab things out because it's fun trying to figure how to counter whatever strategy you used on me. If 40k were more balanced I'd probably approach it the same way.    

 

If you felt that last part was targeted at you that wasn't my intent. I've just found that my opponents that want to play a more competitive match tend to be the saltiest. Like you said its childish, and I won't play against them again.

 

The main point I was trying to make, is that you just should go over your expectations with your opponent. It takes a couple of minutes to say I want a match play game, and I think knowledge checks are really important part of 40k. IF they hate gotcha style interactions they may not play you, but they weren't going to give you the game you wanted anyways.

 

It sucks your friend threatened your pets btw, that's not cool.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

 

[snip]

because in my experience people with a history of winning don’t say things like that

Is it possible that your experience is limited in this regard?

does my experience everyone on the planet? No. Does my experience include a large number of people over the years who have played or competed in multiple games and sports? Yes.

 

Never once met a winner who talked like that.