Sportsmanship/game conduct

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

Where do you draw the line for an ‘oops I forgot to do X’ or ‘oops I forgot Y rule’ in casual games?

 

my opponent forgot about rerolls to wound, after his dice were already put back in the tin, and we were about to move to the next fight.

 

Because we couldn’t say how many failed wounds he had, he wanted me to put the one model he killed back on the table and redo the whole entire combat. He was rolling like 30+ dice for like 15+ models.

i said no to that, and he got butthurt and said ‘well I let you do a charge you forgot about after we already started fighting’ 

 

I told him rolling 2 dice and moving 3 models is hugely different from replacing a model on the table, him rolling 30+ dice and me then rolling half a dozen or more saves. His reply was ‘I disagree, it’s just semantics’

 

so fraters I submit myself to your judgement. Was I wrong to say no in a casual game?

 

what would you have done and why?

 

edit

I also forgot about my reroll 1s to hit and wound a lot, but once the failed dice were put back among other dice I just ate the potential loss.

Edited March 9 by Inquisitor_Lensoven

[Wormwoods]

Re-doing the combat is a bit much. If either of you could remember how many of the wound rolls needed to be re-rolled that's easy to pop on, but I can't imagine ever bothering to rewind time in a game. 

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

46 minutes ago, Wormwoods said:

Re-doing the combat is a bit much. If either of you could remember how many of the wound rolls needed to be re-rolled that's easy to pop on, but I can't imagine ever bothering to rewind time in a game. 

Pretty much what I thought.

[Rain]

Once the next set of rolls is done, it’s done. If you forget your rerolls to hit after already rolling to wound, or forget to reroll wounds after the defender rolls saves, it is what it is.

 

If anything, getting bent out of shape and demanding to unwind an entire set of rolls is the bad sportsmanship. That said, I think it’s good form to remind your opponent of rules that they have (e.g. rerolls) if you yourself know them and they forget.

[Marshal Mittens]

People forget things. I agree in your case there was a difference, but personally, in a friendly casual game, I would be fine with it, especially if it's someone whom I enjoy playing with. I would rather play many more games with them in the future, than only play one and have them think me a poor sportsman, right or wrong. 

[DemonGSides]

If the dice have moved it's on the person who forgot, as there's just no way and redoing it just looks like fishing for better results.

 

Always better to take a forgotten rule as a reminder for the future than it is to go back and do it right. 

[tychobi]

To my mind a sportsman wants to beat their opponent at their best and promote an outcome that both players would describe as a "good game".  That was not achieved in the described situation.

 

A missed rule made this combat invalid. No decision or further action had compounded this mechanical mistake. The mistake was caught in a timely fashion and had a reasonable fix, time allowing.

 

Denying the correction is probably the correct thing to to if winning is paramount. But that win would be tainted. A sportsman definitely would be amenable to correction of the situation. Fast play is great unless it is used to gain advantage.  The player making the mistake and asking for a correction is well within the bounds of fair play. Becoming upset that the understood parameters of fair play are not being observed is understandable but poor form. 

 

Without knowing the reason this fair request was denied it is difficult to access the fault in communication that led to this poor outcome. Over all as described I would say neither player showed good sportsmanship. It takes two hands to clap. No applause for either party. Good sportsmanship is an active duty that takes practice. Good luck and hopefully both players learn to take a more active part in formation of good games to come. 

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

On 3/9/2025 at 8:56 PM, Rain said:

Once the next set of rolls is done, it’s done. If you forget your rerolls to hit after already rolling to wound, or forget to reroll wounds after the defender rolls saves, it is what it is.

 

If anything, getting bent out of shape and demanding to unwind an entire set of rolls is the bad sportsmanship. That said, I think it’s good form to remind your opponent of rules that they have (e.g. rerolls) if you yourself know them and they forget.

Bruh, I can’t even remind myself of my own rules, let alone someone else’s.

 

21 hours ago, tychobi said:

To my mind a sportsman wants to beat their opponent at their best and promote an outcome that both players would describe as a "good game".  That was not achieved in the described situation.

 

A missed rule made this combat invalid. No decision or further action had compounded this mechanical mistake. The mistake was caught in a timely fashion and had a reasonable fix, time allowing.

 

Denying the correction is probably the correct thing to to if winning is paramount. But that win would be tainted. A sportsman definitely would be amenable to correction of the situation. Fast play is great unless it is used to gain advantage.  The player making the mistake and asking for a correction is well within the bounds of fair play. Becoming upset that the understood parameters of fair play are not being observed is understandable but poor form. 

 

Without knowing the reason this fair request was denied it is difficult to access the fault in communication that led to this poor outcome. Over all as described I would say neither player showed good sportsmanship. It takes two hands to clap. No applause for either party. Good sportsmanship is an active duty that takes practice. Good luck and hopefully both players learn to take a more active part in formation of good games to come. 

Allowing the rewind would demean the opponent’s win as well.

 

remembering your rules is a skill as much as maneuvering your models to the right places, as well as building a strong list.

 

’time allowing’ is an extremely subjective caveat. My primary objection was time. If we reset every shooting or combat every time we forget something, especially when 20+ dice are involved that adds a lot of time to a game that’s already expected to last 3 hours minimum. Sure we had plenty of time before the store closed, but my life at least does not revolve around my games, I have other things to do even if it’s just going home to play with my dog.

[Vassakov]

In a casual game, I'd probably let it go and redo the combat if the gamestate hadn't actually moved on. If you get like two combats down the line or whatever and then remember, that's a bit much.

 

In a competitive environment with a clock, it's probably a case of you should wear the error and move on. However, 40k is a really complex game and I tend to find it works a lot better if both players are clear about what's going on and give a bit of benefit of the doubt.

 

In the example of charging units, this actually came up for me at an RTT this weekend where although I'd said "ok, guess I'll have to charge [a Screamer-Killer]" after shooting it was a wet fart, we were half way through the combat phase before I realised I'd never actually charged - but my opponent let me do it, as it was the only unit able to charge into the Screamer-Killer (which, by-the-by, was entirely unbothered by the Wardog before immediately shredding it in return...)

[Xenith]

I wouldn't let him redo the entire combat, but I'd have seen the number of dice they rolled, and take a guess at the number of fails from the to-wound chance, and let them roll a couple of extra dice as a compromise. 

[RWJP]

I wouldn't say there's a single golden rule, and everything is contextual. 

For example if someone had a unit that made two attacks, resolved those fully fully (with one failing to wound) and then immediately after realised they had re-rolls to wound, I'd allow that as it's a quick easy fix. 

On the other hand, if we'd fully resolved a complex combat with several units involved, and then my opponent realised they had forgotten their first unit had re-rolls to wound or whatever, I would be hesitant to allow that or refuse, because it becomes a massively complex endeavour and would effectively require "re-setting" the combat which is almost impossible to do.

I always try to err on the side of being generous, but in some circumstances, the added complexity and time don't make it worth it.

Edited March 11 by RWJP

[MARK0SIAN]

I always feel there’s a big difference between letting someone go back to do something they forgot (like they forgot to shoot with one of their units for example) and letting people go back to redo something they already did but didn’t do it right, especially if the thing they suddenly remember is likely to benefit them. 
 

In the case of the former I’ll always let someone go back but in the second case it depends how much hassle it would be to correct and if it’s going to affect the outcome in other ways.
 

For example in your case, unless your opponent was wounding on 2s, then redoing the entire combat wouldn’t just have given them the chance to reroll their fails of 1, it would’ve also allowed them to reroll every other unsuccessful wound that they would never have been entitled to reroll in the first place. Redoing the combat stood the chance of getting a significantly worse outcome for you even without the forgotten rule coming into play and I don’t think it’s reasonable to expect anyone to do that, if you forgot the rule then unless it’s easily fixable, you have to suffer the consequences.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

6 hours ago, MARK0SIAN said:

I always feel there’s a big difference between letting someone go back to do something they forgot (like they forgot to shoot with one of their units for example) and letting people go back to redo something they already did but didn’t do it right, especially if the thing they suddenly remember is likely to benefit them. 
 

In the case of the former I’ll always let someone go back but in the second case it depends how much hassle it would be to correct and if it’s going to affect the outcome in other ways.
 

For example in your case, unless your opponent was wounding on 2s, then redoing the entire combat wouldn’t just have given them the chance to reroll their fails of 1, it would’ve also allowed them to reroll every other unsuccessful wound that they would never have been entitled to reroll in the first place. Redoing the combat stood the chance of getting a significantly worse outcome for you even without the forgotten rule coming into play and I don’t think it’s reasonable to expect anyone to do that, if you forgot the rule then unless it’s easily fixable, you have to suffer the consequences.

Yep that’s generally how I view these types of situations when I realized a screwed up like that, and just let it go.

Edited March 12 by Inquisitor_Lensoven

[sairence]

Once the dice are rolled and the results of the action are known and resolved it's generally too late to go back imo.

 

Ultimately it's on a player to remember their rules, if they forget it's up to their opponent to allow take backs. And if the game state has changed, information has been gained, etc that's generally too far gone. 

 

And if it was a major impact I'm more likely to remember in future.

 

 

[Jukkiz]

i feel like all the boardgames, cardgames and others. Your actions need to be thinked before said action takes place.

For example: in Magic the gathering, if i cast teferi´s protection and armageddon, you would do really bad things to others at the table. But on other hand, which is the correct way to play them really, or if someone has counterspell for them?  No takes backsies when you done goofed...

[Pacific81]

It no other actions/dice rolls have taken place, casual game or no, I would let them go back and roll the dice. 

 

Most wargame rulebook have a note at the start saying to remember that it's a game, not a professional sport (despite what some of the blog sites that will go un-named try to make out). It goes back to the likes of Featherstone (and a sentiment which carried on from those pioneers through to Rick Priestley, Jervis Johnson etc. at GW), it's at the heart of the DNA of their games, to have a shared enjoyable experience and to try and conduct yourself in a gentlemanly manner. 

[Lord_Ikka]

If you forget something and the dice have been rolled/you've moved to another phase, you lose it, simple as that. I've forgotten plenty of rules in casual and competitive games- those are mistakes that are on me, and I suffer the consequences for them. That's how I view the game. I'll allow more stuff, like the forgotten charge, if the player is new or it's a really casual game, but overall I expect my opponent to follow the same standards that I do- if you screw up you face the music and learn to do better for your next game. Rarely does one single screwup change the complete outcome of a battle and if it does then you've learned a very valuable lesson.

 

I can't tell you how many times I've forgotten a unit in Deep Strike and they just straight up died because I didn't bring them in by the third turn, or forgot to shoot with my Vindicare assassin because I put him up in a building and simply overlooked him because he winds up hidden even from me. Something like trying to redo an entire attack because someone forgot the re-rolls is just not something that is done- there is too much of a "trying to fish for a better outcome" look to it. 

[Cleon]

We play fairly casually when we actually play and to be honest the rules are far too complex with too many things to remember. In similar scenarios to the above we'd generally pick a number that is not zero, but safely less than the number it could have been and roll from there.

 

So if it was 30 shots, 1 model had died, If they were two wound models and I thought I remembered rolling well on 3+ saves, so guesstimate 8 had wounded, assuming 3+ to hit and a guesstimate he'd rolled badly to hit, so 16 hits - 8 already wounded, so we'd end up starting at the wound re-rolls for 8 failed wounds. 

 

I'm not suggesting everyone play like that, some do like it more 'competitive' but we're finding 40k a slog with all the strategmcombos and unit special rules at the moment anyway, so anything to remove the brain overload feels bad moments makes it more likely to get another slot in packed calendars rather than stay on the shelf while we play something else.

[crimsondave]

It’s all about context.  Is this your buddy you play with a lot?  If so, yeah, I’d probably let him do it but I’d get something out of it by “giving him the piss” as you Brits say for the next decade or so.

 

If it was some guy I barely knew and met at a store, that’s a definite eye roll move on their part.  I might let them do it but I’d be hesitant to play them again unless it was an outlier moment in an otherwise fun game.  I  go back and do things I forget a lot but the degree your talking about sounds like fishing in a friendly game which is kinda lame.

 

All that to say, I don’t think you were being unreasonable at all.

Edited March 20 by crimsondave

[Dr. Clock]

I will also support the position that there is a difference between forgetting an entire activation and forgetting to apply buffs on that activation after the fact. That said, if something like this is remembered relatively quickly, I'd usually offer them a few more dice to act in lieu the re-rolls so as to not 'undo' the rolls we just did.

 

So sure - he had 30 shots up front, but we know what happened with probably at least half of those irrespective of hit re-rolls. So maybe you let him take... 10 more shots as the re-rolls, or 15 if it was BS 5+? Again - this will depend on how long it's been since you completed the first try, but overall the most important part is not to throw out the saves you've just made against his wounds. Like - if you had flubbed a heap of saves right there and he remembered, would he be just as ready to re-roll the whole thing? Likely not. It's not really sporting for you to have to take back successful saves based on his forgetfulness, nor indeed for him to get a second chance at rolls that didn't do as expected.

 

It's a fine line, but I think the one you chose was more sporting than his even though a bit of concession from your end might have smoothed it a bit more for him.

 

Cheers,

 

The Good Doctor.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

3 hours ago, crimsondave said:

It’s all about context.  Is this your buddy you play with a lot?  If so, yeah, I’d probably let him do it but I’d get something out of it by “giving him the piss” as you Brits say for the next decade or so.

 

If it was some guy I barely knew and met at a store, that’s a definite eye roll move on their part.  I might let them do it but I’d be hesitant to play them again unless it was an outlier moment in an otherwise fun game.  I  go back and do things I forget a lot but the degree your talking about sounds like fishing in a friendly game which is kinda lame.

 

All that to say, I don’t think you were being unreasonable at all.

Was first time meeting him

[Aarik]

I would definitely look askance at someone wanting to redo a combat or round of shooting because they forgot they had re-rolls, unless they're a new player who I'm playing really just to help them learn the game.  But outside of a teaching environment like that, I think that's going too far because redoing it allows them to mitigate bad luck in the initial rolls. I'm willing to bet if they had a good round rolls the first time and killed more models than expected, they would be fine skipping their re-rolls.  But if someone forgot to make a charge that it's clear they intended to make, or forgot to deep strike before starting the first round of shooting, I'm generally fine to let them do it.  Or if someone rolls to hit and then remembers that they have re-rolls they didn't mention before rolling, that's not a problem because it doesn't affect anything.

 

I also have a related topic that I'd love to take people's temperature on.  I got in a small disagreement with someone on the warhammer competitive subreddit, and I'm curious if the group here feels differently.  It deals with the interaction between playing by intent and the rule/rule artifact that you can position models inside a ruin in such a way that they are outside of the 1" engagement range of enemy models on the outside of the wall, but there is not a big enough gap on the inside of the wall for the enemy bases to fit into, so the unit inside just can't be attacked in melee.  Now, I personally think this is essentially an exploit rather than an intended game mechanic (it's known, but I doubt GW purposefully made this possible or would allow it if there was a non-cumbersome way to prevent it) and that it's distasteful to do.  Reasonable minds can certainly disagree though.  But the point of contention comes because I think that if you're going to do this, you should actually have to measure out the exact distances and place your models that way.  You can't just simply wave your hand and "play by intent" it.  Ultimately, my position is that if you want to take advantage of the micro positioning of your models, you've got to actually do it and be able to do it.  It's not a Michael Scott, "I declare bankrupcty!" situation.  If you're playing with a clock, then you need to decide if it's worth taking the time to do.  The prevailing opinion, however, is that I would be a d*ck for doing that since my position is based on my dislike of the rule, and it is allowed by the rules and technically possible with "a perfect game state."  To me though, it's just distasteful to do and, in principle, I'm not going to make it easier for you to do.  (In real life I don't know that I'd argue it because it's just toy soldiers).  I'm curious to hear what you think and if I'm dying on this hill alone

 

   

[Rain]

54 minutes ago, Aarik said:

I also have a related topic that I'd love to take people's temperature on.  I got in a small disagreement with someone on the warhammer competitive subreddit, and I'm curious if the group here feels differently.  It deals with the interaction between playing by intent and the rule/rule artifact that you can position models inside a ruin in such a way that they are outside of the 1" engagement range of enemy models on the outside of the wall, but there is not a big enough gap on the inside of the wall for the enemy bases to fit into, so the unit inside just can't be attacked in melee.  Now, I personally think this is essentially an exploit rather than an intended game mechanic (it's known, but I doubt GW purposefully made this possible or would allow it if there was a non-cumbersome way to prevent it) and that it's distasteful to do.  Reasonable minds can certainly disagree though.  But the point of contention comes because I think that if you're going to do this, you should actually have to measure out the exact distances and place your models that way.  You can't just simply wave your hand and "play by intent" it.  Ultimately, my position is that if you want to take advantage of the micro positioning of your models, you've got to actually do it and be able to do it.  It's not a Michael Scott, "I declare bankrupcty!" situation.  If you're playing with a clock, then you need to decide if it's worth taking the time to do.  The prevailing opinion, however, is that I would be a d*ck for doing that since my position is based on my dislike of the rule, and it is allowed by the rules and technically possible with "a perfect game state."  To me though, it's just distasteful to do and, in principle, I'm not going to make it easier for you to do.  (In real life I don't know that I'd argue it because it's just toy soldiers).  I'm curious to hear what you think and if I'm dying on this hill alone

 

   

 

The fact that someone would pull nonsense like this, but also be too lazy to actually measure it out is--interesting. If I was cursed with playing someone that did this, I would not only make them measure each individual model's distance to the outside of the ruin wall, but constantly second guess and ask them to re-measure every movement, and non-obvious shooting range. For the obvious shooting ranges, I would ask for measurements anyway. Can never be too sure. Want to make sure we are following the rules properly. I would also do my best to find that one model that is actually .997 inches away from the outside edge of the wall.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

1 hour ago, Aarik said:

I would definitely look askance at someone wanting to redo a combat or round of shooting because they forgot they had re-rolls, unless they're a new player who I'm playing really just to help them learn the game.  But outside of a teaching environment like that, I think that's going too far because redoing it allows them to mitigate bad luck in the initial rolls. I'm willing to bet if they had a good round rolls the first time and killed more models than expected, they would be fine skipping their re-rolls.  But if someone forgot to make a charge that it's clear they intended to make, or forgot to deep strike before starting the first round of shooting, I'm generally fine to let them do it.  Or if someone rolls to hit and then remembers that they have re-rolls they didn't mention before rolling, that's not a problem because it doesn't affect anything.

 

I also have a related topic that I'd love to take people's temperature on.  I got in a small disagreement with someone on the warhammer competitive subreddit, and I'm curious if the group here feels differently.  It deals with the interaction between playing by intent and the rule/rule artifact that you can position models inside a ruin in such a way that they are outside of the 1" engagement range of enemy models on the outside of the wall, but there is not a big enough gap on the inside of the wall for the enemy bases to fit into, so the unit inside just can't be attacked in melee.  Now, I personally think this is essentially an exploit rather than an intended game mechanic (it's known, but I doubt GW purposefully made this possible or would allow it if there was a non-cumbersome way to prevent it) and that it's distasteful to do.  Reasonable minds can certainly disagree though.  But the point of contention comes because I think that if you're going to do this, you should actually have to measure out the exact distances and place your models that way.  You can't just simply wave your hand and "play by intent" it.  Ultimately, my position is that if you want to take advantage of the micro positioning of your models, you've got to actually do it and be able to do it.  It's not a Michael Scott, "I declare bankrupcty!" situation.  If you're playing with a clock, then you need to decide if it's worth taking the time to do.  The prevailing opinion, however, is that I would be a d*ck for doing that since my position is based on my dislike of the rule, and it is allowed by the rules and technically possible with "a perfect game state."  To me though, it's just distasteful to do and, in principle, I'm not going to make it easier for you to do.  (In real life I don't know that I'd argue it because it's just toy soldiers).  I'm curious to hear what you think and if I'm dying on this hill alone

 

   

It’s the rules, and it’s one that is too questionable about if they meant for it to be that way or not, so I would default to RAW.

its been known and talked about for quite some time, and GW has yet to FAQ it or errata it so I think that also lends to RAW and RAI overlapping.

 

no different in my eyes than positioning one chaff model to prevent your opponent from being able to charge a more high value target. 
positioning and forethought are as much a part of the game as rolling dice is.

 

but yes if they’re not willing to actually measure it out when placing their models, then I would, and I would make the charge roll and fight if i make it in, if they mispositioned their models.

 

especially if I were at a competitive event. In a casual game if they’re 15/16” from the wall or something I’d be like “aight it’s clear what you wanted/meant to do.”

 

but in a tournament, I’d have an unforgiving attitude about things like that. You don’t just hand wave things away in competitive games.

Edited March 20 by Inquisitor_Lensoven

[DemonGSides]

2 hours ago, Aarik said:

also have a related topic that I'd love to take people's temperature on.  I got in a small disagreement with someone on the warhammer competitive subreddit, and I'm curious if the group here feels differently.  It deals with the interaction between playing by intent and the rule/rule artifact that you can position models inside a ruin in such a way that they are outside of the 1" engagement range of enemy models on the outside of the wall, but there is not a big enough gap on the inside of the wall for the enemy bases to fit into, so the unit inside just can't be attacked in melee.  Now, I personally think this is essentially an exploit rather than an intended game mechanic (it's known, but I doubt GW purposefully made this possible or would allow it if there was a non-cumbersome way to prevent it) and that it's distasteful to do.  Reasonable minds can certainly disagree though.  But the point of contention comes because I think that if you're going to do this, you should actually have to measure out the exact distances and place your models that way.  You can't just simply wave your hand and "play by intent" it.  Ultimately, my position is that if you want to take advantage of the micro positioning of your models, you've got to actually do it and be able to do it.  It's not a Michael Scott, "I declare bankrupcty!" situation.  If you're playing with a clock, then you need to decide if it's worth taking the time to do.  The prevailing opinion, however, is that I would be a d*ck for doing that since my position is based on my dislike of the rule, and it is allowed by the rules and technically possible with "a perfect game state."  To me though, it's just distasteful to do and, in principle, I'm not going to make it easier for you to do.  (In real life I don't know that I'd argue it because it's just toy soldiers).  I'm curious to hear what you think and if I'm dying on this hill alone

 

Personally I don't think it's an exploit, but they also need to do the work. It's not like it makes the unit unassailable; the oft forgotten response to someone who does this is to just got over the top of them onto the second floor if available, which will be within the 5" vertical engagement range. 

 

If they go "I'm just under an inch away from that wall" and you go to measure it and they're exactly an inch, well that's well within the "I bumped the table and the models shifted".  But they have to try to make it work.

 

Intent follows action; I made a move with the intent to be that your units can't fit, I have plenty of leftover movement to eliminate any slightly shifts of the table/terrain.  If they move their full movement and say that, then I would say they need to measure it out because it's got knock on ramifications for your turn.

 

It's not my favorite rule that they have in the current game, but I don't think it lacks logic for the game. I think fighting THROUGH a ruin wall makes even less sense but works with current rules. It's all an abstraction.