Friendly games, ethics question

[Brother Casman]

[snip]

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.

Ah. Well, that rather closes the door on further discussion.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

 

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.

again never said that, I’m just trying to understand what there is to find fun if you’re not even trying to win.

 

I’ve literally said multiple times here that a close loss can be very fun, but where’s the fun in not even trying to win?

[Rogue]

But do you not think that you can be trying to win whilst also providing your opponent with relevant information? In fact, isn't that where the challenge lies?

 

Any muppet can win a game with enough surprise combos up their sleeve. At some point, it's like shooting fish in a barrel. But a skilled player wins against the odds, by utilising the tools at their disposal more effectively than their opponent.

 

Look, I play to win. Even in a friendly game I'll be annoyed with myself if I lose. But I'd prefer to lose to an opponent who knew my rules (even if I have to tell them), than win because I withheld information.

 

[As an example: I played a tournament game against a Space Wolf army a few years back. Towards the end of the game, with time running out and with me slightly ahead on points, I moved a unit of inceptors out of combat. Doing so would keep them alive till the end of my turn, secure an objective and win the game.

 

For speed (and so that he gets his last turn in), I moved them back just over three inches, without really worrying about their exact position - the game was almost over, they didn't need to do anything else, so I just needed to avoid a Heroic Intervention. Simple.

 

Except Wolves can Intervene 6". Which he promptly does, kills the unit and flips the result. He just watched me deliberately move my unit 'out of range' (whilst explaining that's what I was doing) but chose not to mention his special rule.

 

Should I have asked if he had any relevant special rules? Maybe. He didn't mention it pre-game when we discussed our armies, and I've never played Wolves before, so it didn't occur to me that it was a possibility.

 

To me, that was gamesmanship; not illegal, not cheating, but not very gentlemanly conduct. It's not how I'd want to win a game, tournament or not.]

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

But do you not think that you can be trying to win whilst also providing your opponent with relevant information? In fact, isn't that where the challenge lies?

 

Any muppet can win a game with enough surprise combos up their sleeve. At some point, it's like shooting fish in a barrel. But a skilled player wins against the odds, by utilising the tools at their disposal more effectively than their opponent.

 

Look, I play to win. Even in a friendly game I'll be annoyed with myself if I lose. But I'd prefer to lose to an opponent who knew my rules (even if I have to tell them), than win because I withheld information.

 

[As an example: I played a tournament game against a Space Wolf army a few years back. Towards the end of the game, with time running out and with me slightly ahead on points, I moved a unit of inceptors out of combat. Doing so would keep them alive till the end of my turn, secure an objective and win the game.

 

For speed (and so that he gets his last turn in), I moved them back just over three inches, without really worrying about their exact position - the game was almost over, they didn't need to do anything else, so I just needed to avoid a Heroic Intervention. Simple.

 

Except Wolves can Intervene 6". Which he promptly does, kills the unit and flips the result. He just watched me deliberately move my unit 'out of range' (whilst explaining that's what I was doing) but chose not to mention his special rule.

 

Should I have asked if he had any relevant special rules? Maybe. He didn't mention it pre-game when we discussed our armies, and I've never played Wolves before, so it didn't occur to me that it was a possibility.

 

To me, that was gamesmanship; not illegal, not cheating, but not very gentlemanly conduct. It's not how I'd want to win a game, tournament or not.]

Sure anyone can win with enough surprise combos, but the number of surprise combos are limited, and how often they can be used is limited by CP.

 

Do you really feel you earned your win if your opponent helped you to win by guiding your decision making by telling you all about everything? That seems like a hollow victory to me.

[Beams]

 

But do you not think that you can be trying to win whilst also providing your opponent with relevant information? In fact, isn't that where the challenge lies?

 

Any muppet can win a game with enough surprise combos up their sleeve. At some point, it's like shooting fish in a barrel. But a skilled player wins against the odds, by utilising the tools at their disposal more effectively than their opponent.

 

Look, I play to win. Even in a friendly game I'll be annoyed with myself if I lose. But I'd prefer to lose to an opponent who knew my rules (even if I have to tell them), than win because I withheld information.

 

[As an example: I played a tournament game against a Space Wolf army a few years back. Towards the end of the game, with time running out and with me slightly ahead on points, I moved a unit of inceptors out of combat. Doing so would keep them alive till the end of my turn, secure an objective and win the game.

 

For speed (and so that he gets his last turn in), I moved them back just over three inches, without really worrying about their exact position - the game was almost over, they didn't need to do anything else, so I just needed to avoid a Heroic Intervention. Simple.

 

Except Wolves can Intervene 6". Which he promptly does, kills the unit and flips the result. He just watched me deliberately move my unit 'out of range' (whilst explaining that's what I was doing) but chose not to mention his special rule.

 

Should I have asked if he had any relevant special rules? Maybe. He didn't mention it pre-game when we discussed our armies, and I've never played Wolves before, so it didn't occur to me that it was a possibility.

 

To me, that was gamesmanship; not illegal, not cheating, but not very gentlemanly conduct. It's not how I'd want to win a game, tournament or not.]

Sure anyone can win with enough surprise combos, but the number of surprise combos are limited, and how often they can be used is limited by CP.

 

Do you really feel you earned your win if your opponent helped you to win by guiding your decision making by telling you all about everything? That seems like a hollow victory to me.

Are we talking about a friendly game or a tournament game? Because those are two different things.

 

Also, like, is it really winning if you only win because your opponent hasn't studied your rules?

 

Like, this isn't magic the gathering where your hand is private. This isn't xwing where your movement is hidden. This is a game where almost everything except genestealer cult is open information. If I say I am moving my guys out of intervention range, and you don't tell me that intervention range for you is 6" instead of 3", well, you aren't telling me the rules for your army. That's not a secret, and even inside of a tournament, I'd treat that as a serious low class move, akin to cheating if notnactually cheating, since that's not supposed to be hidden. I shouldn't have to constantly ask you, in a friendly game, if you have a trick up your sleeve.

 

And likewise, if you say you will charge my sisters, I should tell you that they have a strat to get max hits on their heavy framers, and ask if you still want to do it. You can then decide based off of that -- if i win, it's not because you didn't know my gotcha spells.

Edited May 28, 2022 by Beams

[Slave to Darkness]

Heres an idea, before a match show your opponent your army list and your stratagems in your dex, give them 5-10 mins to have a quick read, then what they do with that information is down to them. They can join the dots between units you take and what strats you may be leaning on with said units, or they could just have a look and carry on as normal, then they have all the info they need without you having to hold their hand. They have the data, what they do with it is down to them.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

 

 

But do you not think that you can be trying to win whilst also providing your opponent with relevant information? In fact, isn't that where the challenge lies?

 

Any muppet can win a game with enough surprise combos up their sleeve. At some point, it's like shooting fish in a barrel. But a skilled player wins against the odds, by utilising the tools at their disposal more effectively than their opponent.

 

Look, I play to win. Even in a friendly game I'll be annoyed with myself if I lose. But I'd prefer to lose to an opponent who knew my rules (even if I have to tell them), than win because I withheld information.

 

[As an example: I played a tournament game against a Space Wolf army a few years back. Towards the end of the game, with time running out and with me slightly ahead on points, I moved a unit of inceptors out of combat. Doing so would keep them alive till the end of my turn, secure an objective and win the game.

 

For speed (and so that he gets his last turn in), I moved them back just over three inches, without really worrying about their exact position - the game was almost over, they didn't need to do anything else, so I just needed to avoid a Heroic Intervention. Simple.

 

Except Wolves can Intervene 6". Which he promptly does, kills the unit and flips the result. He just watched me deliberately move my unit 'out of range' (whilst explaining that's what I was doing) but chose not to mention his special rule.

 

Should I have asked if he had any relevant special rules? Maybe. He didn't mention it pre-game when we discussed our armies, and I've never played Wolves before, so it didn't occur to me that it was a possibility.

 

To me, that was gamesmanship; not illegal, not cheating, but not very gentlemanly conduct. It's not how I'd want to win a game, tournament or not.]

Sure anyone can win with enough surprise combos, but the number of surprise combos are limited, and how often they can be used is limited by CP.

 

Do you really feel you earned your win if your opponent helped you to win by guiding your decision making by telling you all about everything? That seems like a hollow victory to me.

Are we talking about a friendly game or a tournament game? Because those are two different things.

 

Also, like, is it really winning if you only win because your opponent hasn't studied your rules?

 

Like, this isn't magic the gathering where your hand is private. This isn't xwing where your movement is hidden. This is a game where almost everything except genestealer cult is open information. If I say I am moving my guys out of intervention range, and you don't tell me that intervention range for you is 6" instead of 3", well, you aren't telling me the rules for your army. That's not a secret, and even inside of a tournament, I'd treat that as a serious low class move, akin to cheating if notnactually cheating, since that's not supposed to be hidden. I shouldn't have to constantly ask you, in a friendly game, if you have a trick up your sleeve.

 

And likewise, if you say you will charge my sisters, I should tell you that they have a strat to get max hits on their heavy framers, and ask if you still want to do it. You can then decide based off of that -- if i win, it's not because you didn't know my gotcha spells.

no one is talking about hidden :cuss.

You and those taking your position just sound butthurt you might lose because you might make a bad move because you don’t know everything, but that’s life.

[Bryan Blaire]

no one is talking about hidden .

You and those taking your position just sound butthurt you might lose because you might make a bad move because you don’t know everything, but that’s life.

You aren’t convincing that what you do is right or ethical for friendly games, and don’t sound very friendly.  Not sure who you are trying to convince here….

 

If your “friendly” games involve what you are talking about, hopefully they at least agreed to it first.  You don’t sound fun or enjoyable to play against at all.  You also don’t sound like you can win graciously or in a sportsmanlike fashion.

[Antarius]

 

 

[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.

 

I've won a lot of games, just so you can update your information for future discussions.

 

I've also found that while I usually do try to win, I have a lot more fun when I'm not focusing too much on that part of the game.

 

I also tend to think that if you want a game where you can legitimately be proud of a win, current 40K is not really a good game for that, because there's not necessarily anything about winning 40K in its current state that has to do with actual strategic or tactical abilities. Some of my best games of 40K from a "how well did I perform"-perspective have been losses. So have my most enjoyable games. In fact, I think my least enjoyable games have been wins.

[Inquisitor lorr]

 

 

[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.

Honestly, it sounds like your ‘winning’, or, more likely, lack thereof in life is the driver behind your approach. If you feel the need to take every tiny unsporting point in what you call a “friendly” game of toy soldiers, you might want to reconsider that winning attitude you’re so proud of, and tone down the comebacks in this thread. You started a post about “friendly” games and have then adopted a stance which clearly the majority of people who have responded to you think does not reflect a “friendly” game, but rather a tournament game. Perhaps people aren’t “butthurt” about losing, but are just more content in their lives, and want to enjoy their hobby for what it is.

 

I genuinely feel sad for you if you’re incapable of playing for fun, without a need to win. You also have clearly never had a game with Mr Duncan Rhodes. I’ve never had more fun than playing against Duncan and believe me if there is ever a decision about winning or taking the cool thematic option, you can be damn sure which one he will take every time! That is fun.

[Rogue]

Do you really feel you earned your win if your opponent helped you to win by guiding your decision making by telling you all about everything? That seems like a hollow victory to me.

Conversely, do *you* really feel you've earned a win if you've deliberately chosen not to share relevant information? Because that would feel like a pretty hollow victory to me (especially in a friendly game).

 

Had I been in the Space Wolf player's position, I'd have been unhappy with myself from an integrity point of view if I chose to take the victory like that. (And yes, it was a tournament, so it's a bit different, but it was the best example I have - this sort of thing doesn't come up in friendly games with my group, because those games are, well, friendly.)

 

If I can't out-play my opponent, I don't really want to snatch victory by out-tricking him instead. As a teenager, I was part of a gaming group like that - we were all highly irritating, win-at-all-costs rules lawyers whose main concern was putting together over-powered lists and combos. We spent more time arguing about who's interpretation of the rules was right than actually playing the game.

 

At the time, we were all happy with that approach (although I don't think it was a productive or positive one). Looking back, current me wouldn't want to play teenage me. I think current me would win the game, because I'm a better all-round player than teenage me: he was reliant on trick-plays and gotchas, rather than learning tactics and strategies. It just wouldn't be a fun experience for current me.

Edited May 28, 2022 by Rogue

[Halandaar]

but where’s the fun in not even trying to win?

Well just as one example, a scenario where you're playing a Guard force fighting against endlessly recycling waves of Tyranids. You literally cannot win, the fun is in surviving as long as possible and creating cool stories.

 

Anyway, I never said I don't even try to win, I said that victory is not my primary concern in a friendly game.

[gideon stargreave]

 

but where’s the fun in not even trying to win?

Well just as one example, a scenario where you're playing a Guard force fighting against endlessly recycling waves of Tyranids. You literally cannot win, the fun is in surviving as long as possible and creating cool stories.

 

Anyway, I never said I don't even try to win, I said that victory is not my primary concern in a friendly game.

 

Remember your training and you will make it out alive!

[Jorin Helm-splitter]

But do you not think that you can be trying to win whilst also providing your opponent with relevant information? In fact, isn't that where the challenge lies?

 

Any muppet can win a game with enough surprise combos up their sleeve. At some point, it's like shooting fish in a barrel. But a skilled player wins against the odds, by utilising the tools at their disposal more effectively than their opponent.

 

Look, I play to win. Even in a friendly game I'll be annoyed with myself if I lose. But I'd prefer to lose to an opponent who knew my rules (even if I have to tell them), than win because I withheld information.

 

[As an example: I played a tournament game against a Space Wolf army a few years back. Towards the end of the game, with time running out and with me slightly ahead on points, I moved a unit of inceptors out of combat. Doing so would keep them alive till the end of my turn, secure an objective and win the game.

 

For speed (and so that he gets his last turn in), I moved them back just over three inches, without really worrying about their exact position - the game was almost over, they didn't need to do anything else, so I just needed to avoid a Heroic Intervention. Simple.

 

Except Wolves can Intervene 6". Which he promptly does, kills the unit and flips the result. He just watched me deliberately move my unit 'out of range' (whilst explaining that's what I was doing) but chose not to mention his special rule.

 

Should I have asked if he had any relevant special rules? Maybe. He didn't mention it pre-game when we discussed our armies, and I've never played Wolves before, so it didn't occur to me that it was a possibility.

 

To me, that was gamesmanship; not illegal, not cheating, but not very gentlemanly conduct. It's not how I'd want to win a game, tournament or not.]

 

As a space wolf player, I really don't like HI because it's a negative play experience for people and I've asked GW not to give out army HI for that reason. I go over my chapter tactic and mention I have stratagem to buff the range for HI before games unless my opponent doesn't want to go over rules. For the most part that sacrifices a stratagem and it is one of the most powerful ones I have access too.  So, my question is would you feel good about it if you had beat him because he gave up one of his best options in a tournament?

 

I mean it would've been really nice of him, but would you have been in a position to win if you didn't use one of your best stratagems at the perfect moment for it?

 

 

Thats what really makes this murky for me, and why I think having a pregame discussion is the best way to go. In a tournament I would expect things like this because that's just how GW designed a lot of stratagems, I don't like it but it is what it is. 

[Valkyrion]

 

I genuinely feel sad for you if you’re incapable of playing for fun, without a need to win. You also have clearly never had a game with Mr Duncan Rhodes. I’ve never had more fun than playing against Duncan and believe me if there is ever a decision about winning or taking the cool thematic option, you can be damn sure which one he will take every time! That is fun.

 

 

Right on, frater. My favourite ever loss was displacer fielding my space marine captain off the board in a Tyranid Attack mission back in second. In that mission the Tyranids had to kill every enemy model or they lost, and this guy was my last model and he displaced himself to cost me the game. Brilliant. I'd have won had I given him a conversion field instead! 

 

But modern 40k isn't as straightforward as it used to be, as evidenced in this thread. From 1993 to 2017 every army was different but followed the same rules and the same structure and there were no gotcha moments. You barely even needed a pregame discussion - you had to only explain one or two rules, like Shadow in the Warp, Reanimation Protocols, ATSKNF - but it would have been really shady had you not explained those rules and then twirled your moustache when a game changing situation arose that you are in sole control over. 

 

Now it's so much more involved you need to look beyond the pre game chat and tell your opponent what you are going to do with your unit unless they have a counter. The information isn't secret, I'm free to buy Codex Tau and look it all up, but it's unreasonable to expect me to know what each counter might be for each faction.

 

if we had to buy our stratagems then that'd be different, I think, because then it's part of list building, but whilst they are free to use, CP permitting, you should talk it through. 

[MARK0SIAN]

 

 

But do you not think that you can be trying to win whilst also providing your opponent with relevant information? In fact, isn't that where the challenge lies?

 

Any muppet can win a game with enough surprise combos up their sleeve. At some point, it's like shooting fish in a barrel. But a skilled player wins against the odds, by utilising the tools at their disposal more effectively than their opponent.

 

Look, I play to win. Even in a friendly game I'll be annoyed with myself if I lose. But I'd prefer to lose to an opponent who knew my rules (even if I have to tell them), than win because I withheld information.

 

[As an example: I played a tournament game against a Space Wolf army a few years back. Towards the end of the game, with time running out and with me slightly ahead on points, I moved a unit of inceptors out of combat. Doing so would keep them alive till the end of my turn, secure an objective and win the game.

 

For speed (and so that he gets his last turn in), I moved them back just over three inches, without really worrying about their exact position - the game was almost over, they didn't need to do anything else, so I just needed to avoid a Heroic Intervention. Simple.

 

Except Wolves can Intervene 6". Which he promptly does, kills the unit and flips the result. He just watched me deliberately move my unit 'out of range' (whilst explaining that's what I was doing) but chose not to mention his special rule.

 

Should I have asked if he had any relevant special rules? Maybe. He didn't mention it pre-game when we discussed our armies, and I've never played Wolves before, so it didn't occur to me that it was a possibility.

 

To me, that was gamesmanship; not illegal, not cheating, but not very gentlemanly conduct. It's not how I'd want to win a game, tournament or not.]

As a space wolf player, I really don't like HI because it's a negative play experience for people and I've asked GW not to give out army HI for that reason. I go over my chapter tactic and mention I have stratagem to buff the range for HI before games unless my opponent doesn't want to go over rules. For the most part that sacrifices a stratagem and it is one of the most powerful ones I have access too. So, my question is would you feel good about it if you had beat him because he gave up one of his best options in a tournament?

 

I mean it would've been really nice of him, but would you have been in a position to win if you didn't use one of your best stratagems at the perfect moment for it?

 

 

Thats what really makes this murky for me, and why I think having a pregame discussion is the best way to go. In a tournament I would expect things like this because that's just how GW designed a lot of stratagems, I don't like it but it is what it is.

I think you’ve hit on a good point about the design of the stratagems, particularly those that are played in your opponents turn. They’re effectively designed to screw over your opponents plan/move and that just creates a feels bad moment for the player whose turn is taking place.

 

I’m very much of the opinion that my turn is MY turn and your turn is YOUR turn. Being able to interfere with the other players turn just feels bad to me and definitely creates some moral quandaries for friendly games in terms of whether you should use certain stratagems or not.

[phandaal]

You also have clearly never had a game with Mr Duncan Rhodes.

This is true of so many people that it is basically a non sequitur.

 

Just start pointing at random 40k players. Clearly, they have never had a game with Duncan Rhodes either. Statistically speaking.

[Inquisitor lorr]

 

You also have clearly never had a game with Mr Duncan Rhodes.

This is true of so many people that it is basically a non sequitur.

Or, an example.

[Slave to Darkness]

Tbh I wouldnt even bother playin someone from GW hq, they cant even make a decent game... Playing Mordian Glory or Valrak on the other hand, that will be a battle sagas are made of. 

[phandaal]

Tbh I wouldnt even bother playin someone from GW hq, they cant even make a decent game... Playing Mordian Glory or Valrak on the other hand, that will be a battle sagas are made of.

Mordian Glory and his 300 guardsman list would be something to remember!

[Rogue]

As a space wolf player, I really don't like HI because it's a negative play experience for people and I've asked GW not to give out army HI for that reason. I go over my chapter tactic and mention I have stratagem to buff the range for HI before games unless my opponent doesn't want to go over rules. For the most part that sacrifices a stratagem and it is one of the most powerful ones I have access too. So, my question is would you feel good about it if you had beat him because he gave up one of his best options in a tournament?

 

I mean it would've been really nice of him, but would you have been in a position to win if you didn't use one of your best stratagems at the perfect moment for it?

 

 

Thats what really makes this murky for me, and why I think having a pregame discussion is the best way to go. In a tournament I would expect things like this because that's just how GW designed a lot of stratagems, I don't like it but it is what it is.

You're right, tournaments are a bit different, and a slightly harder edge is expected on both sides. If he'd mentioned the HI rule at the start, and then I'd forgotten about it, then that's on me. In this case, he didn't mention it at all until it happened (which was the feel-bad element).

 

And this was back in 8th edition (if I remember right), so Marines didn't really have any good stratagems :) I probably just rolled hot or something.

[Slave to Darkness]

 

Tbh I wouldnt even bother playin someone from GW hq, they cant even make a decent game... Playing Mordian Glory or Valrak on the other hand, that will be a battle sagas are made of.

Mordian Glory and his 300 guardsman list would be something to remember!

 

*excited gasmask noises*

[Jorin Helm-splitter]

 

As a space wolf player, I really don't like HI because it's a negative play experience for people and I've asked GW not to give out army HI for that reason. I go over my chapter tactic and mention I have stratagem to buff the range for HI before games unless my opponent doesn't want to go over rules. For the most part that sacrifices a stratagem and it is one of the most powerful ones I have access too. So, my question is would you feel good about it if you had beat him because he gave up one of his best options in a tournament?

 

I mean it would've been really nice of him, but would you have been in a position to win if you didn't use one of your best stratagems at the perfect moment for it?

 

 

Thats what really makes this murky for me, and why I think having a pregame discussion is the best way to go. In a tournament I would expect things like this because that's just how GW designed a lot of stratagems, I don't like it but it is what it is.

You're right, tournaments are a bit different, and a slightly harder edge is expected on both sides. If he'd mentioned the HI rule at the start, and then I'd forgotten about it, then that's on me. In this case, he didn't mention it at all until it happened (which was the feel-bad element).

 

And this was back in 8th edition (if I remember right), so Marines didn't really have any good stratagems I probably just rolled hot or something.

 

 

The problem with HI is that is always a feel bad moment, and that is coming from someone who warns people ahead of time. I'm not a fan of the ability, and if Ragnar didn't really work well with my favorite units, I would use successor rules instead. I could get the +1 to hit from the custom rules, and get another ability I'll actually use. By warning people I am handicapping myself, and I don't think that should be the expectation in a tournament game. I'll do it but I tend to go to tournaments to talk about lore, paint jobs, and see friends. I don't really view 40k as a competitive game but other people do and they are entitled to that opinion.

 

If it was early in 8th neither side had good stratagems , the HI would have been only for characters and always be 6" it was part of our chapter tactic. Saga of the beast was when non-characters gained HI as part of our chapter tactic and the counter charge stratagem first showed up. That was after the second marine book and the supplements when marines were at their peak.   

Edited May 29, 2022 by Jorin Helm-splitter

[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.

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.

 

That's a fair point, one I've actually brought up myself in the past, but for different reasons. The much shorter length of most MTG games (unless you're playing Commander like I often do) does make it more conducive to recover and go again from things like that.  

 

For me, I think in terms of how an actual battle would progress. Were these forces actually clashing, the more information you can keep secret the better to surprise your opponent and gain the upper hand. To me, that make the game more immersive and realistic. 

 

Now don't get me wrong, there are some serious issues I take with the WAY it's handled and the lack of realism in other aspects. For one, how close armies start and how few turns there are certainly restrict the kind of things you can do that an actual army might try to do, but I understand the need to keep games to a reasonable length. Other things though, like Transhuman only being a thing when you specifically order your one squad of marines to think tough thoughts really breaks it for me.

 

Overall though, as someone who has played every edition since third, while I do think the system could use a lot of fine tuning, I do like the play / counter-play style. It feels like I have far more options on what my army can do once it's on the table than ever before. While the rule / exception / exception to the exception, ect... issues are getting REALLY annoying, and the missions feel pretty samey, I do really enjoy the level of flexibility in how you can wield your army on the table, and that only comes with having a plethora of options, which will by nature mean it's going to be hard for opponents to always know just what you can do.  

 

Honestly, if I could, I would make secondary objectives secret, kinda like they have in Kill Team, and you only reveal them once you score them for the first time. I'm sure many people may consider that a "gotcha" type thing, but I think it would make for many interesting tactical decisions.  

Edited May 30, 2022 by Tawnis

[Tawnis]

But do you not think that you can be trying to win whilst also providing your opponent with relevant information? In fact, isn't that where the challenge lies?

 

Any muppet can win a game with enough surprise combos up their sleeve. At some point, it's like shooting fish in a barrel. But a skilled player wins against the odds, by utilising the tools at their disposal more effectively than their opponent.

 

Look, I play to win. Even in a friendly game I'll be annoyed with myself if I lose. But I'd prefer to lose to an opponent who knew my rules (even if I have to tell them), than win because I withheld information.

 

[As an example: I played a tournament game against a Space Wolf army a few years back. Towards the end of the game, with time running out and with me slightly ahead on points, I moved a unit of inceptors out of combat. Doing so would keep them alive till the end of my turn, secure an objective and win the game.

 

For speed (and so that he gets his last turn in), I moved them back just over three inches, without really worrying about their exact position - the game was almost over, they didn't need to do anything else, so I just needed to avoid a Heroic Intervention. Simple.

 

Except Wolves can Intervene 6". Which he promptly does, kills the unit and flips the result. He just watched me deliberately move my unit 'out of range' (whilst explaining that's what I was doing) but chose not to mention his special rule.

 

Should I have asked if he had any relevant special rules? Maybe. He didn't mention it pre-game when we discussed our armies, and I've never played Wolves before, so it didn't occur to me that it was a possibility.

 

To me, that was gamesmanship; not illegal, not cheating, but not very gentlemanly conduct. It's not how I'd want to win a game, tournament or not.]

I think this example is really good because it sums up a middle ground that I think people are missing. This doesn't have to be all or nothing. I think the feel of it is important, and I think this will be different for every player. 

 

Despite my arguments in opposition earlier, I personally would not want to win this way. To me, there is a big difference between setting a trap with unknown information and exploiting someone who is just trying to expedite the game. To use this as an example, I would easily consider this the latter. However, had I set up my unit in a way that made my opponent want to keep their units within 6" of me, say for instance, if by moving more than 6" away, they were now off of the objective, then no, I would not consider it an issue.