Sportsmanship/game conduct

[Dr. Clock]

2 hours ago, Aarik said:

I personally think this is essentially an exploit rather than an intended game mechanic

This is one of those things that should simply never be considered 'friendly'. I agree it's a pretty clear exploit. That doesn't mean people should necessarily feel bad using it in a competitive setting, but I would indeed insist on them 'actually doing it' and not just handwaving it away as 'just a thing they can declare'. One can't really 'play by intent' when it comes to actual model positioning if one is going to be so hardnosed about setting up 'denial zone' exploits like this at the same time. 'Intent' is only getting us so far. The action has to be legally possible, and something like this is only possible hopefully in rare situations such that they have to do it to know if it is possible. 

 

Playing by intent to my mind is more about just being communicative about what you are doing and the measurements you are making and why in order to cut down on confusion or badfeels over forgetting things or if something just gets bumped. If I'm setting up a charge, you should be sure that I'm going to check the distance in my move phase and let the opponent know so that even if I forget, they will let me roll, and we'll also know the measurement in advance. 

 

Alot of playing by intent in my experience is just saying things early so that if you forget in the moment you can double back to intent. I still routinely end up rolling a unit's shooting only to get to the end of a turn and remember that I'd declared them to be doing an action so they shouldn't have shot - most of the time people are okay to let you have a take back if you had already declared something like that. 

 

Cheers,

 

The Good Doctor.

[DemonGSides]

36 minutes ago, Dr. Clock said:

Alot of playing by intent in my experience is just saying things early so that if you forget in the moment you can double back to intent. I still routinely end up rolling a unit's shooting only to get to the end of a turn and remember that I'd declared them to be doing an action so they shouldn't have shot - most of the time people are okay to let you have a take back if you had already declared something like that

 

I think this is a huge key to the discussion too, but I think also runs into one of the greatest issues that people on this board complain about; social interaction.  I can't describe how many times I've been told here that talking out a game prior to playing is onerous and impossible (hell we we are in a thread where that's stated from the opening post) because of a litany of reasons, but I'm always left scratching my head because EVERY game of 40k I've played, regardless of the edition or where it's played, has always had at least a ten to fifteen minute discussion prior to any deployment or even terrain being set up most of the time.

 

Knock on effect of that I guess being that people also don't chit chat during the game, or discuss what they're doing. Every time I make a game action I fully explain what I'm intending to do and what my hopes are, because silently pushing plastic around a table sounds extremely boring and tedious, but it feels like that's what a lot of people EXPECT out of the game.

 

The playing by intent stuff feels like an attempt to get people to be more sociable while playing because we all understand it's a board game at its base level and not an actual battle. The problem comes from those who treat it as such. WAAC and the general competitive mindset are toxic, but so is a lack of social grace when it comes to dealing with the other player across the battlefield. 

Edited March 20 by DemonGSides

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

46 minutes ago, DemonGSides said:

 

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. 

 

Right? Fighting through a solid wall is a-ok, but god forbid you try shooting a model you can literally see through a window or a massive gap in the wall…     -_-

[crimsondave]

6 hours ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

Was first time meeting him

The fact someone you just met would ask you that and then have the nerve to get butthurt about it is pretty cringe as the kids say these days.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

14 minutes ago, crimsondave said:

The fact someone you just met would ask you that and then have the nerve to get butthurt about it is pretty cringe as the kids say these days.

Yeah and then he messaged me to make a non-apology, apology.

[Dr. Clock]

4 hours ago, DemonGSides said:

one of the greatest issues that people on this board complain about; social interaction.

I can remember this being an issue on occasion when I used to game with people I just met. I'm now in my original rural setting such that I literally never play with anyone I haven't known for decades lol.

 

Cheers,

 

The Good Doctor.

[MARK0SIAN]

I’m personally of the opinion that making models unchargeable by positioning them a certain distance from the wall is an exploit. I find it hard to believe that’s what the designers intended and for evidence I point to the fact that the whole reason they introduced a vertical engagement range was to stop units on the second floor of a building from being unchargeable. They clearly don’t intend for units in buildings to be immune to charging. 
 

As I consider it an exploit I would also consider anyone using it to be ‘That Guy’ and so I would be super specific about making sure they followed all the other rules exactly and would definitely make them measure the distance.

[Aarik]

20 hours ago, DemonGSides said:

I think fighting THROUGH a ruin wall makes even less sense but works with current rules. It's all an abstraction. 

 

Yeah, I think that's one of my biggest issues with it.  So much else of the game is an abstraction, that there's something off to me about relying on a tactic that requires millimeter precision.  And infantry can move through solid walls freely, so it makes sense to me that they could similarly fight through them.  At the end of the day, I want rules that at least in spirit roughly approximate a real battle to the extent practical.  So things like this, or trying to draw LOS through gaps in a tank's tracks, rubs me the wrong way.  Top tables at a tournament?  Sure.  But anything other than that, not a fan and will judge you for trying (though realistically probably wouldn't say anything to a stranger because the rules are the rules and I don't want to unnecessarily argue about toy soldiers).

 

But glad to hear that I'm not completely alone in feeling this way.

Edited March 21 by Aarik

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

34 minutes ago, Aarik said:

 

Yeah, I think that's one of my biggest issues with it.  So much else of the game is an abstraction, that there's something off to me about relying on a tactic that requires millimeter precision.  And infantry can move through solid walls freely, so it makes sense to me that they could similarly fight through them.  At the end of the day, I want rules that at least in spirit roughly approximate a real battle to the extent practical.  So things like this, or trying to draw LOS through gaps in a tank's tracks, rubs me the wrong way.  Top tables at a tournament?  Sure.  But anything other than that, not a fan and will judge you for trying (though realistically probably wouldn't say anything to a stranger because the rules are the rules and I don't want to unnecessarily argue about toy soldiers).

 

But glad to hear that I'm not completely alone in feeling this way.

I think about it like this.

 

if a group of people is right up against the wall of a ruined building you can stab at them through the windows/doors/blast holes/etc, but if someone is say 2 or 3 feet back from the wall, you have to clamber through the window/door/blast hole to get to them which would be suicidely stupid in most cases because it leaves you extremely exposed.

 

its just as much of an exploit to ignore the rule, because you’re then giving yourself an extra inch or more on your charge if you ignore it.

 

charging units on the second floor from ground level is also really stupid.

 

 

[Rain]

35 minutes ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

I think about it like this.

 

if a group of people is right up against the wall of a ruined building you can stab at them through the windows/doors/blast holes/etc, but if someone is say 2 or 3 feet back from the wall, you have to clamber through the window/door/blast hole to get to them which would be suicidely stupid in most cases because it leaves you extremely exposed.

 

its just as much of an exploit to ignore the rule, because you’re then giving yourself an extra inch or more on your charge if you ignore it.

 

charging units on the second floor from ground level is also really stupid.

 

 

 

It's an abstraction. The models represent "actual" Orks, Astartes, etc. that are not standing perfectly still in the exact positions that they are placed it. They are constantly moving, shuffling around, taking cover, etc. If a unit was just inside of a wall, and that wall got charged by, say, Khorne Berzerkers that proceeded to punch/chainaxe holes in the wall to attack through, the guys taking cover just behind the wall would be pushed back a bit in reaction.

 

The funny part is that this is done by putting models a little bit away from the wall, so as to not fit bases, but put them outside of 1 inch. The bases are an even greater abstraction, as even if the actual body of a model would fit, the base needs to fit for rules purposes. Bases don't "really exist" in the battle that the game is abstracting and trying to recreate. So, while yes, this does appear to be Rules as Written, this is pretty clearly against the spirit of the game, and this kind of nonsense is exactly why I would never play in an organized event, or in any setting in which I can't just refuse to play against certain people.

 

Edit: To add to this, 40k is not "just a board game" in the same way that Monopoly or Risk is. There is a huge amount of lore, and people spend thousands of dollars and hundreds of hours building, converting, and panting their army to represent specific units and lore. The game itself is only part of it. While that is operationalized as a tabletop game to make it playable beyond two guys making "pow" and "bang" noises at each other, the rules are written to simulate a battle in this fictional universe according to the lore of that universe, and rules exploits based on an overly technical reading of the rules are distasteful, at least to me. But that's the beauty of a tabletop game. No one forces you to play against anyone else. People that want to play this way are free to do so, just as I am free to roll my eyes at them.

Edited March 21 by Rain

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

9 minutes ago, Rain said:

 

It's an abstraction. The models represent "actual" Orks, Astartes, etc. that are not standing perfectly still in the exact positions that they are placed it. They are constantly moving, shuffling around, taking cover, etc. If a unit was just inside of a wall, and that wall got charged by, say, Khorne Berzerkers that proceeded to punch/chainaxe holes in the wall to attack through, the guys taking cover just behind the wall would be pushed back a bit in reaction.

 

The funny part is that this is done by putting models a little bit away from the wall, so as to not fit bases, but put them outside of 1 inch. The bases are an even greater abstraction, as even if the actual body of a model would fit, the base needs to fit for rules purposes. Bases don't "really exist" in the battle that the game is abstracting and trying to recreate. So, while yes, this does appear to be Rules as Written, this is pretty clearly against the spirit of the game, and this kind of nonsense is exactly why I would never play in an organized event, or in any setting in which I can't just refuse to play against certain people.

Yes it’s all abstractions, and somehow all the abstractions benefit melee armies.

its stupid to ‘abstract’ fighting through a solid wall, but not be able to shoot through a literal window/door/hole.

 

again though there’s no way to resolve this issue fairly. Just doing the combat means you’re adding distance to your charge equal to the thickness of that wall, potentially enabling a charge that you otherwise wouldn’t have been able to make if they were in the same position without the wall being there.

Edited March 21 by Inquisitor_Lensoven

[MARK0SIAN]

1 hour ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

I think about it like this.

 

if a group of people is right up against the wall of a ruined building you can stab at them through the windows/doors/blast holes/etc, but if someone is say 2 or 3 feet back from the wall, you have to clamber through the window/door/blast hole to get to them which would be suicidely stupid in most cases because it leaves you extremely exposed.

 

its just as much of an exploit to ignore the rule, because you’re then giving yourself an extra inch or more on your charge if you ignore it.

 

charging units on the second floor from ground level is also really stupid.

 

 

But whichever side of the fence you fall on this you’ve got two situations that are completely opposite. Either they can’t reach them through the wall, in which case they shouldn’t be able to reach them through the floor either, OR if you can reach 5 inches above your head to fight someone you should be able to reach through a wall too. 
 

Whether you deem the current rules an abstraction or not, there’s not really any way of getting away from the fact that the current rules provide this contradiction where a model can’t reach through a 5mm wall but can reach 5 inches above their head and then through a 5mm floor. 
 

I find it really hard to believe this is intended and is why I consider the wall example an exploit.

[Dr. Clock]

1 hour ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

if a group of people is right up against the wall of a ruined building you can stab at them through the windows/doors/blast holes/etc, but if someone is say 2 or 3 feet back from the wall, you have to clamber through the window/door/blast hole to get to them which would be suicidely stupid in most cases because it leaves you extremely exposed.

 

Sure - at the same time I am unaware of any real life military operating procedure revolving around forming a solid line of infantry exactly 25" from exterior walls so that your enemy's personal space is invaded when they pile through the breach... I'd suggest furthermore that whatever risk of 'getting left exposed' there is in these situations is already well accounted for in the respect of a) having to roll a specific number to reach engagement range in the first place and b) being potentially subject to Overwatch or other reactive options the target may possess. I refuse to make use of any rule state that gets us super fussed over less than a tenth of an inch on placement. IMO If you can make the charge roll to go the distance needed, you should make it into engagement range even if the 'technical limit of engagement range' falls in the middle of a ruins wall.

 

I can agree that maybe some kinds of movement through certain kinds of terrain could or should suffer some broader penalties to represent the difficulty of assaulting a prepared position and that's something you could try if it's important enough to you... making a 2" reduction in charge and advance distances that take models over ruins or whatever could be an option to bring in across the board, but I'd also expect that the slower factions would definitely feel that more than the majority - basically like DG and Votann or anyone moving 5" or less should maybe get a pass on the reduction? Then you're also in the situation of really messing things up when people may be using weapons or abilitis that otherwise reduce charge ranges... The game is clearly built around the idea that 'the charge roll is important!' and making it too difficult is thus a big concern for balance. Mostly it's the idea of having something 'technically unchargeable' due to these arbitrary tiny measurements that feels bad to me as game design whether due to a loophole or a specific intention.

 

Cheers,

 

The Good Doctor.

Edited March 21 by Dr. Clock

[DemonGSides]

"Technically unchargeable" is doing a lot of work to get people upset in this thread when that's not even really the case in game.  It's to make the easiest avenue of charging something difficult, which I think is a very fair play in most circumstances.

You can get around this so called "Unchargeable unit" by assautling it from a slightly different angle or just going up and over them.  Or having a 25mm base.  It's not really that big of a deal and I think there's more getting worked up about it in this thread than there is in any practical operation of the game.

Edited March 21 by DemonGSides

[Valkyrion]

I thinking calling out someone you've never played before as being butthurt on the internet on a platform in which they cannot defend themselves is worse than asking to reroll a fight during a one off game between strangers.

 

Edited Monday at 01:31 AM by Brother Tyler
Personal attack removed

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

3 hours ago, MARK0SIAN said:

But whichever side of the fence you fall on this you’ve got two situations that are completely opposite. Either they can’t reach them through the wall, in which case they shouldn’t be able to reach them through the floor either, OR if you can reach 5 inches above your head to fight someone you should be able to reach through a wall too. 
 

Whether you deem the current rules an abstraction or not, there’s not really any way of getting away from the fact that the current rules provide this contradiction where a model can’t reach through a 5mm wall but can reach 5 inches above their head and then through a 5mm floor. 
 

I find it really hard to believe this is intended and is why I consider the wall example an exploit.

I agree fighting floor to floor is pretty stupid. Again another abstraction that favors melee units.

 

3 hours ago, DemonGSides said:

"Technically unchargeable" is doing a lot of work to get people upset in this thread when that's not even really the case in game.  It's to make the easiest avenue of charging something difficult, which I think is a very fair play in most circumstances.

You can get around this so called "Unchargeable unit" by assautling it from a slightly different angle or just going up and over them.  Or having a 25mm base.  It's not really that big of a deal and I think there's more getting worked up about it in this thread than there is in any practical operation of the game.

It’s not even technically unchargable if it’s a short charge and you roll high.

[Dr. Clock]

4 hours ago, DemonGSides said:

get people upset in this thread

I was actually almost feeling like this was one of the more civil conversations on this kind of topic lol...

 

I'm not upset. Indeed, having a wonderful time with this chat!

 

2 hours ago, Valkyrion said:

I thinking calling out someone you've never played before as being butthurt on the internet on a platform in which they cannot defend themselves, a platform in which you've posted 7000 times and therefore expect validation, is worse than asking to reroll a fight during a one off game between strangers.

 

The OP didn't call anyone out from where I'm sitting; this is all anonymous. To me, 'calling out' is something you do within earshot of the person you are calling out. You can't 'call me out' if you don't use my name. So this is not that - rather it seems to me like OP was just trying to double check their personal social assessments and judgments instead of calling out the behaviour more directly. I think it's rather a sign of good character to be constantly checking one's assumptions against the perceptions of others... Indeed, social norms and mores are not self-obvious across every setting, and I find it rather crummy to condemn someone who'd seek out anonymous advice from a trusted community. Just a thought. 

 

Cheers,

 

The Good Doctor.  

[DemonGSides]

14 hours ago, Dr. Clock said:

was actually almost feeling like this was one of the more civil conversations on this kind of topic lol...

 

I'm not upset. Indeed, having a wonderful time with this chat!

 

I agree it has remained civil, just that some people are hearing about this it feels like and immediately jumping to "You're a bad sportsman for even suggesting this" which feels... Egregious, considering the factors I mentioned.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

I almost forgot because the redo combat thing was so wild, but he also demanded any die that wasn’t perfectly level be rerolled. Tbf he demanded the reroll regardless of if the initial result was beneficial to him or not.

[gideon stargreave]

15 hours ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

I almost forgot because the redo combat thing was so wild, but he also demanded any die that wasn’t perfectly level be rerolled. Tbf he demanded the reroll regardless of if the initial result was beneficial to him or not.

This is fair enough. Although it’s easier to just have a dice tray

[MARK0SIAN]

17 hours ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

I almost forgot because the redo combat thing was so wild, but he also demanded any die that wasn’t perfectly level be rerolled. Tbf he demanded the reroll regardless of if the initial result was beneficial to him or not.

A friend of mine introduced me to what I assume is their house rule that if you can balance another die on the face of the die in question then it’s not cocked but if the die slides off then it is cocked and needs to be rerolled. 
 

A lot of times even if dice aren’t totally flat it’s very clear what the result was and I would probably find it quite annoying to have to reroll those, regardless of whether it benefited me or not.

[Antarius]

3 hours ago, gideon stargreave said:

This is fair enough. Although it’s easier to just have a dice tray

I have a (very good) friend who has a dice tray (and a dice tower). It seems to me that the only thing it really accomplishes is take up a lot of space and make sure that he has to use extra time to reroll a lot of dice as they inevitably spill out of the tray with every roll he makes 

But I am sure there are less annoying dice trays out there.

Most of my friends tend to follow a self-declared "re-roll every dice that is not flat on the table/in the dice tray" rule, which is fine as long as you a) are consistent about it and b) don't force it on others. I tend to do the same in my games with them, just so everyone's on the same page.

In general, when it comes to sportsmanship I think "be consistent about it" and "be pleasant about it" goes a very long way. As such, I can accept people who play with e.g. the mentioned "just under 1 inch from the wall" thing, although I definitely feel it's a dodgy reading of the RAI, but if those same people are suddenly much more loose with measurements when it benefits them, then I think it becomes an issue.

It's not always out of malicious intent though; some people just get super caught up in the game and don't even realise that they're not being consistent.
I have an old and dear friend who is a bit of a joke in our circle, because he is super zealous about measurements and LoS when it's his opponent's turn and extremely lax when it's his own turn (something that everybody, except himself, has both noticed and mentioned to me). It's obviously bad sportsmanship, but he genuinely doesn't realise he's doing it.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

5 hours ago, gideon stargreave said:

This is fair enough. Although it’s easier to just have a dice tray

We did, but sometime dice stop slightly leaned against the tray.

[roryokane]

On 3/20/2025 at 11:24 AM, 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.

The phrase is “take the piss”. As in “Dave is going to take the piss out of Phil for the rest of time for his insistence on re-rolling every single dice in that combat because he’d forgotten a re-roll rule.”

or “stop taking the piss, and get on with the game!”