PDA

View Full Version : Surprise.....



Superfly
31-03-2014, 00:48
Something I was thinking about.....
While I totally see why when playing games you have points limits and both players have the same or close totals, why do you have to say what unit is in which vehicle or what you have in reserve?

Wouldn't it make games a bit more risky and fun not knowing exactly what you could be facing? Is the opposition holding back a Landraider? S&@t ! No here's the Death Company! - for example! Or bluffing....he's got a wraithnight..oh it's a guardian squad...

Just thinking while watching a documentary and thinking when countries go to war they don't tell each other what they will do so why in 40k....

Thoughts?!



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalkc

Marshal
31-03-2014, 00:50
It's to prevent cheating. So jackass 1 doesn't decide that he's moving his command squad from the rhino to the drop pod because the rhino got blown up first turn.

Superfly
31-03-2014, 00:55
I must be too trusting as that never occurred to me!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalkc

Greyhound
31-03-2014, 01:03
Write it down on a piece of paper: cheating gone.

MagicHat
31-03-2014, 01:21
The one time I have been dumbfounded in a game of Warhammer was when my opponent shouted "Suprise Reveal! My Necron Lord have a mindshackle scarab!" after I challenged him.

But I agree, it would be funnier if you could hide your armylist and what is in transports and what not.

hobojebus
31-03-2014, 01:49
If you know and trust the people you play it's no issue, but if your playing a pick up game you have no way of knowing if they are cool or WaaC players that have multiple lists they'll pick from after you deploy, some care more for winning than having fun.

Geep
31-03-2014, 04:47
Write it down on a piece of paper: cheating gone.
Sadly no. I used to be in a group with a few people, well known for being cheating s#!@$. Common 'tactics' included clumsy attempts at sleight of hand during the 'reveal', or just having multiple copies of the army list hidden in different pockets around their body. Then one a rhino blows up and it's time to put out the correct models they just have to pull out the army list that has things listed in their favour.
It was frustrating to play against (and there were too few other opponents to just avoid them all the time), but there were at least some funny times when they'd pull out the wrong army list, swear mightily, then attempt to hide it and pull out another list.
You'd also have to check their math on the army list too. They were always bad at math, somehow squeezing in an extra 300+ points every game... :rolleyes:

If you play with actually decent people though, hidden army lists and things can be a fine idea.

Hawkkf
31-03-2014, 05:56
The surprise idea does have potential but it falls into the same issue that apocalypse has: too many chances for arguments to break out without a moderator. That said if you have someone to be an impartial third party and hold the army lists and take note of special things like hidden deployment, then it can work out very interestingly. Of course you have to make sure the third party is impartial, remembers what players tell him accurately, and doesnt wander off and lose interest in the game.

Oakenshield
31-03-2014, 09:28
There was a good story recounted in a historical wargame magazine about a battle being played on in the Napoleonic period.

There was an umpire monitoring the game but neither force knew what the other side would be fielding. The French player had set up and was waiting for his Russian opponent, who walked up with a few boxed and deployed a large amount of infantry and set the rest of the boxes behind him. Written on the side of one in large letters was COSSACKS.

As the battle progressed it became obvious the French player wasn't committing all his forces to the attack, leaving a good number in reserve and in doing so ended up only attacking piece meal and being shot to pieces.

As the game drew to a close the frustrated French player asked where the "damned Cossacks where"? Only to be told the boxes behind the Russian player were totally empty. He had kept his reserve for nothing! Suprise!

Born Again
31-03-2014, 10:35
I've thought the same thing before, it would certainly be the more 'realistic' approach, but as a ruleset, it makes it open to all kinds of abuse, cheating and rules nastiness. If you wanted to try it, I'd recommend each player writing down in detail before deployment (ie; tactical squad with flamer in Rhino with gunner in cupola, tacical squad with flamer in Rhino with HK missile) and keeping their list, face down, somewhere in plain view of both players, so that when you reveal something you can't try to pull the old 'multiple army lists' trick.

In general though I have no problem with how it is, it makes things run better rules/ game wise, you have a clearer idea of what is actually going on in terms of models moving on and off the board ("honest, this squad coming on from reserve is not the squad you just wiped out..."), even if you trust your opponent not to cheat it makes things smoother, and I can concentrate on tactical maneuvering rather worrying about what's going to pop up where. I imagine my army's scouts got me intel on enemy numbers before the battle. Plus, even if you know what's in reserve, you never really know when they're going to arrive, or where if they have Outflank, Deep Strike or other arrival shenanigans, so there's still some element of surprise there.

aim
31-03-2014, 10:41
There was a good story recounted in a historical wargame magazine about a battle being played on in the Napoleonic period.

There was an umpire monitoring the game but neither force knew what the other side would be fielding. The French player had set up and was waiting for his Russian opponent, who walked up with a few boxed and deployed a large amount of infantry and set the rest of the boxes behind him. Written on the side of one in large letters was COSSACKS.

As the battle progressed it became obvious the French player wasn't committing all his forces to the attack, leaving a good number in reserve and in doing so ended up only attacking piece meal and being shot to pieces.

As the game drew to a close the frustrated French player asked where the "damned Cossacks where"? Only to be told the boxes behind the Russian player were totally empty. He had kept his reserve for nothing! Suprise!

And thats what you get for being a dirty meta-gaming b*stard and trying to game the system to your advantage. He was out-played and out-gamed, the better man won and theres nothing to complain about really. The situation wouldn't have occured had the french player assessed the game objectively and played with what he and the other chap had fielded, instead of trying to gain the advantage by abusing omniscient 'knowledge' he wouldn't have had were he an actual general in that battle.

Killgore
31-03-2014, 10:42
Where does it state that you have to be open to your opponent about what is in reserve or the contents of vehicles?

If you have a written army list under the table which is clearly marked with what unit is in which transport then what's the problem?


I play 40K either way, if my opponent starts telling me about his army then I have no problem doing the same, but otherwise I keep quiet until the unit gets revealed.

Cheeslord
31-03-2014, 10:44
I too have thought about a variant 40k where all reserves (and all contents of transports and building for that matter) were "hidden" until they hit the tabletop (after that they are permanently revealed - its not supposed to be a memorization game!) - but yes, for pick-up games just make sure everything is written down on bits of paper to ensure honesty. It would add a new layer of strategy trying to anticipate what the other player had hidden in their transports or in reserves (with of course the possibility of bluffing and wrong-footing your opponent, maybe sending empty transports to draw fire while your troops deepstrike, outflank or perform some other cunning plan). It would also make outflanking a bit better again as it could catch your opponent off-guard.

If we still played much 40k down our way I would definitely give it a go. Maybe in 7th edition...

<edit> the only problem I do not have a solution for is that of points-counting, i.e. each player wasting lots of game time working out their opponents points costs to try and guess how much they had in reserve/transports - or whether they have enough point unaccounted for to spring those 5 terminators from that landraider, or is it just a bluff...</edit>

Mark.

Kahadras
31-03-2014, 12:30
And thats what you get for being a dirty meta-gaming b*stard and trying to game the system to your advantage. He was out-played and out-gamed, the better man won and theres nothing to complain about really. The situation wouldn't have occured had the french player assessed the game objectively and played with what he and the other chap had fielded, instead of trying to gain the advantage by abusing omniscient 'knowledge' he wouldn't have had were he an actual general in that battle.

I suppose it depends on how you look at it. The Russian player was meta-gaming as much as the French player as he'd have known that his opponant couldn't afford to just ignore the implied threat of a bunch of reserves comming on. I've seen the same thing used in 40K before and to a lesser extent in Warhammer (stuff like Night Goblin fanatics and Skaven/Dark Elf assasins). Some people see it as a tactical masterstroke others as a d*ck move used by WAACers.

Baragash
31-03-2014, 12:45
I suppose it depends on how you look at it. The Russian player was meta-gaming as much as the French player as he'd have known that his opponant couldn't afford to just ignore the implied threat of a bunch of reserves comming on. I've seen the same thing used in 40K before and to a lesser extent in Warhammer (stuff like Night Goblin fanatics and Skaven/Dark Elf assasins). Some people see it as a tactical masterstroke others as a d*ck move used by WAACers.

Well yes and no, trying to make the opposing generals believe you have a better force at your disposal than you actually have is a valid (and historically used) tactic, so IMO it's legitimate play* ;)

I play with people who don't cheat so I quite fancy trying this. I think we would use unit cards, so rolling through reserves would mean picking a card up, rolling and either revealing it, or "discarding" it for that turn.

*Depending on the relationship between opponent's, most people can judge how their opponent is going to take it.

aim
31-03-2014, 12:59
I suppose it depends on how you look at it. The Russian player was meta-gaming as much as the French player as he'd have known that his opponant couldn't afford to just ignore the implied threat of a bunch of reserves comming on. I've seen the same thing used in 40K before and to a lesser extent in Warhammer (stuff like Night Goblin fanatics and Skaven/Dark Elf assasins). Some people see it as a tactical masterstroke others as a d*ck move used by WAACers.

Thats what I was saying. He (the French player), has no grounds to be angry, had he not been trying to gain a meta advantage to the battle, it wouldn't have happened, and he can't exactly complain about the russian players use of meta-gaming as he was also doing it, just not as well.

Basically, had the French army guy not been trying to meta-game, then the battle would have just played out like a regular battle. Its entirely on his head.

Kahadras
31-03-2014, 13:06
Well yes and no, trying to make the opposing generals believe you have a better force at your disposal than you actually have is a valid (and historically used) tactic, so IMO it's legitimate play*

Agreed but I always think it's always a good idea to remember that it's a game. 'Legitimate play' is OK but after the 'Suprise! I totaly had you' moment comes those little thoughts creep in.


Basically, had the French army guy not been trying to meta-game, then the battle would have just played out like a regular battle. Its entirely on his head.

So the Russian player was not meta-gaming by implying that he'd brought reserves when he hadn't? In fact by doing so he could be seen to be forcing the French player into the metagame.

Monkeyrazzar
31-03-2014, 13:13
There was a good story recounted in a historical wargame magazine about a battle being played on in the Napoleonic period.

There was an umpire monitoring the game but neither force knew what the other side would be fielding. The French player had set up and was waiting for his Russian opponent, who walked up with a few boxed and deployed a large amount of infantry and set the rest of the boxes behind him. Written on the side of one in large letters was COSSACKS.

As the battle progressed it became obvious the French player wasn't committing all his forces to the attack, leaving a good number in reserve and in doing so ended up only attacking piece meal and being shot to pieces.

As the game drew to a close the frustrated French player asked where the "damned Cossacks where"? Only to be told the boxes behind the Russian player were totally empty. He had kept his reserve for nothing! Suprise!

Whats the name of the magazine?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Oakenshield
31-03-2014, 13:15
It was either Battlegames or a very short run one called Classic Wargames Journal.

aim
31-03-2014, 13:26
So the Russian player was not meta-gaming by implying that he'd brought reserves when he hadn't? In fact by doing so he could be seen to be forcing the French player into the metagame.

He didn't force the French player into anything, and he didn't change the way he would have normally played the game. He may have benn subtly maniplulating the other gamer, or he could have been sick of other players meta-gaming instead of playing as an in-world general would, or it could have been a box he re-used after moving and he may have not given the label 2 thoughts. Either way, he just gamed the game as was represented on the table.

The French army player CHOSE to ALTER THE WAY HE WAS PLAYING due to EXTERNAL KNOWLEDGE.

Had he not tried to gain an unfair, in-world advantage from his omniscient, real world advanced 'knowledge' of the other generals plans, then he wouldn't have crippled his chances to win. Just deserts.

Kahadras
31-03-2014, 13:49
Had he not tried to gain an unfair, in-world advantage from his omniscient, real world advanced 'knowledge' of the other generals plans, then he wouldn't have crippled his chances to win. Just deserts.

If you think that the Russian player set up those boxes entirely by accident then by all means. Seems odd to bring empty boxes along to a game though. Especialy labled boxes. I don't know how much to take from the story because I wasn't there but in my reading there's more than a hint that the Russian player knew exactly what he was doing.

Lanacane
31-03-2014, 14:48
The one time I have been dumbfounded in a game of Warhammer was when my opponent shouted "Suprise Reveal! My Necron Lord have a mindshackle scarab!" after I challenged him.

But I agree, it would be funnier if you could hide your armylist and what is in transports and what not.


Unless you asked him to show you his list.. he could pull a surprise MSS.. considering i havent seen a lord run without them.. its not really a surprise anymore either


EDIT:

There was a time when you needed at least a copy of your army list for a tournie.. I always make two (one for me one for them) so disputes like this doesnt crop up.. I even mark what is what..

For example in my Fallen Army.. i use DA Veterans in robes as Plague Marines.. as they look much much different than the generic DA "chaos marines".. so on the army list i put (PM are dudes in robes)

I use Mutations as power weapons too.. and they are marked on the list.


I always try to play someone with a list that i can check during a game to see they are not cheating..

Works wonders on things that arent modeled, or can't be. Daemons weapons, Boon of Mutation table, psychic powers, and more recently C'Tan powers.

aim
31-03-2014, 15:09
If you think that the Russian player set up those boxes entirely by accident then by all means. Seems odd to bring empty boxes along to a game though. Especialy labled boxes. I don't know how much to take from the story because I wasn't there but in my reading there's more than a hint that the Russian player knew exactly what he was doing.

And lets suppose he was, there are 2 possible outcomes;

1) His opponent doesn't meta-game and both parties play the game with the assets on the board/what appears during the game as if they were actual generals at the battle

2) His opponent is a dirty cheating meta-gamer who tries to take advantage of outside knowledge and cripples his army in the expectation of some other force suddenly appearing, whilst the Russian army player plays the game as if he were a General at the battle.

The result - A legit gamer has a legit game against the Russian Army player. A meta-gamer trying to get an advantage from real-world knowledge in a tournament that was meant to have concealed lists/units end up costing himself the game.

As far as I'm concerned, wether the box was labelled deliberately or not, theres no harm, no foul, since this would only give the guy an advantage over people that were trying to circumvent the spirit of the tournament to give themselves the upper hand.

Marshal
31-03-2014, 15:16
The problem is that I've seen it time and time again where someone "accidentally" uses an extra unit, or changes tactics mid game (this unit isn't going to walk on the board, they're going to deepstrike because they need to be over there) or something like that, which in turn leads to arguments after the fact. I've seen too many games where someone declares that unit A is in transport A but then 5 turns into the game where transport A explodes, unit B comes out which leads to the opponent arguing that he said X when he argues that he said Y (which he very well could have thought he did). When you play an army with tons of transports, especially when they all look the same, they start moving around, it's hard to remember even if you write it down which one contains what (thinking of leafblower guard with 6+ chimeras, or dark eldar with an equal amount of raiders or venoms). At least by telling your opponent where everything is, you have a second set of eyes to figure everything out.

MagicHat
31-03-2014, 15:30
Unless you asked him to show you his list.. he could pull a surprise MSS.. considering i havent seen a lord run without them.. its not really a surprise anymore either


EDIT:

There was a time when you needed at least a copy of your army list for a tournie.. I always make two (one for me one for them) so disputes like this doesnt crop up.. I even mark what is what..

For example in my Fallen Army.. i use DA Veterans in robes as Plague Marines.. as they look much much different than the generic DA "chaos marines".. so on the army list i put (PM are dudes in robes)

I use Mutations as power weapons too.. and they are marked on the list.


I always try to play someone with a list that i can check during a game to see they are not cheating..

Works wonders on things that arent modeled, or can't be. Daemons weapons, Boon of Mutation table, psychic powers, and more recently C'Tan powers.

We went over what every unit was and had equipped at the start of the game, as is usual in our group, and had armylists, even though we didn't read each others.
He is the only player that have ever had surprise wargear :D(in 40K).

Marshal
31-03-2014, 15:42
And lets suppose he was, there are 2 possible outcomes;

1) His opponent doesn't meta-game and both parties play the game with the assets on the board/what appears during the game as if they were actual generals at the battle

2) His opponent is a dirty cheating meta-gamer who tries to take advantage of outside knowledge and cripples his army in the expectation of some other force suddenly appearing, whilst the Russian army player plays the game as if he were a General at the battle.

The result - A legit gamer has a legit game against the Russian Army player. A meta-gamer trying to get an advantage from real-world knowledge in a tournament that was meant to have concealed lists/units end up costing himself the game.

As far as I'm concerned, wether the box was labelled deliberately or not, theres no harm, no foul, since this would only give the guy an advantage over people that were trying to circumvent the spirit of the tournament to give themselves the upper hand.

The problem is that the Russian player used this to his advantage. He used the real world environment into tricking the French player into thinking he had stuff he really didn't. It would be no different than me bringing empty boxes marked "Riptides" on them to a game of 40k, making my opponent thinking I had a bunch of, or at least 1, Riptide in reserve to either deepstrike or walk on the board. The Russian player knew the French player would react this way or he wouldn't have done it. It, IMHO, shows a lack of tactics on the Russian player part, as surprising your opponent is something a cheese person with very little tactical strategy would do. There's very little different between it and using a deathstar tactic to be honest and has very little strategy behind it. It's no different than sucker punching someone and claiming you won the fight...

Scammel
31-03-2014, 15:43
And lets suppose he was, there are 2 possible outcomes;

1) His opponent doesn't meta-game and both parties play the game with the assets on the board/what appears during the game as if they were actual generals at the battle

2) His opponent is a dirty cheating meta-gamer who tries to take advantage of outside knowledge and cripples his army in the expectation of some other force suddenly appearing, whilst the Russian army player plays the game as if he were a General at the battle.

The result - A legit gamer has a legit game against the Russian Army player. A meta-gamer trying to get an advantage from real-world knowledge in a tournament that was meant to have concealed lists/units end up costing himself the game.

As far as I'm concerned, wether the box was labelled deliberately or not, theres no harm, no foul, since this would only give the guy an advantage over people that were trying to circumvent the spirit of the tournament to give themselves the upper hand.

Strikes me as a d*ck move that is entirely the fault of the Ruskie (if intentional). You're seriously suggesting that the French player should just somehow 'forget' what he's seen, that he should just pretend to play without that knowledge? It's an unfair, impossible situation and the Russian player is an a*se if it was deliberately engineered.

Konovalev
31-03-2014, 16:08
It's also worth considering the physical logistics of it all.

Myself and a lot of people I've played with will unpack their army and place it somewhere off to the side/under the table just so their units that are in reserves, or in transports are on hand and not forgotten, or more easily deployed for the start of the game.

So it's going to be hard to hide that land raider, or knight when it's sitting off to the side in plain view. Trying to keep everything that's not on the table packed away in my case is inconvenient and time consuming to pull out in the middle of a game in progress.

Spider-pope
31-03-2014, 16:21
Something I was thinking about.....
While I totally see why when playing games you have points limits and both players have the same or close totals, why do you have to say what unit is in which vehicle or what you have in reserve?

Wouldn't it make games a bit more risky and fun not knowing exactly what you could be facing? Is the opposition holding back a Landraider? S&@t ! No here's the Death Company! - for example! Or bluffing....he's got a wraithnight..oh it's a guardian squad...

Just thinking while watching a documentary and thinking when countries go to war they don't tell each other what they will do so why in 40k....

Thoughts?!



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalkc

It'd only really work with a GMed game but it could make for an interesting battle. Both players give the GM their army lists, but not each other, and go from there.

Fear Ghoul
31-03-2014, 16:40
Sadly no. I used to be in a group with a few people, well known for being cheating s#!@$. Common 'tactics' included clumsy attempts at sleight of hand during the 'reveal', or just having multiple copies of the army list hidden in different pockets around their body. Then one a rhino blows up and it's time to put out the correct models they just have to pull out the army list that has things listed in their favour.
It was frustrating to play against (and there were too few other opponents to just avoid them all the time), but there were at least some funny times when they'd pull out the wrong army list, swear mightily, then attempt to hide it and pull out another list.
You'd also have to check their math on the army list too. They were always bad at math, somehow squeezing in an extra 300+ points every game... :rolleyes:

If you play with actually decent people though, hidden army lists and things can be a fine idea.

I would just refuse to play with such people, even if that means I wouldn't be able to play as well.

DoctorTom
31-03-2014, 17:04
Where does it state that you have to be open to your opponent about what is in reserve or the contents of vehicles?

Under "A Note on Secrecy" on page 118.

This is a fairly recent change (I can't remember if it was that way in 5th, but it wasn't in 4th).

Kahadras
31-03-2014, 17:21
The problem is that the Russian player used this to his advantage.

This. If it was an intentional move by the Russian player it puts the French player in an impossible situation. The Russian player has forced a metagame onto the French whether they want it or not. He has introduced 'real world knowledge' into the game which his opponant has to deal with. Even better he gets away scot free as it's opponant who looks like he's the one who's in the wrong for using 'metagame knowledge'.

Menthak
31-03-2014, 19:26
It'd only really work with a GMed game but it could make for an interesting battle. Both players give the GM their army lists, but not each other, and go from there.

Basically this is what we do. Then -since all our models are equipped as modelled- it's up to you to spot what each unit has, or guess which transport has what. Normally in smaller games we just bluetack the unit's name to the underside of the transport if possible.

Lanacane
31-03-2014, 19:49
If it was an intentional move by the Russian player it puts the French player in an impossible situation.

You mean the position that a general pre-19th century wouldnt have an accurate way to predict what the enemy has..

You are fortunate that you do know what he has, using something called an army list.. if you dont make full use of the resources at your command or you try to game the battle because you want to crush a strong reserve unit, then that is sloppy generalship.

The Russian placed down boxes he brought his army in close at hand.. The French was an idiot for focusing more on the threat of something being there, than the fact he was being slaughtered on the game.

Kingly
31-03-2014, 20:10
I like the idea, it can be set in stone quite easily as well, might try it out.

tiger g
31-03-2014, 20:22
You mean the position that a general pre-19th century wouldnt have an accurate way to predict what the enemy has..

You are fortunate that you do know what he has, using something called an army list.. if you dont make full use of the resources at your command or you try to game the battle because you want to crush a strong reserve unit, then that is sloppy generalship.

The Russian placed down boxes he brought his army in close at hand.. The French was an idiot for focusing more on the threat of something being there, than the fact he was being slaughtered on the game.

I have to agree. But most Napoleonic games are not point games. they are narratives and trying to replicate the conditions of the battle. The fear of Cossacks coming in reserve should be there even if not a possibility. This type of play is what is missing in 40k. Blind lists what was it was all about in the beginning. Whoever bought the next big model and learning how to destroy it. So surprise for some is a good thing. Even random charges are great for some. But those who want to play in the predictable world not so much.

Use to play historicals where the turn system was based on cards and a unit could move three times before other units if the cards came up right. Many complained it was too random and only the lucky won. Well had to friends who won over 90% of the time. Not due to luck but sticking to a plan, being able to adjust it where necessary and not being rattled. So it is really up to how you play. Not having surprise and knowing in the second turn who is going to win is a little boring for some even on the winning side.

Hawkkf
31-03-2014, 20:33
I dont fault the russian player in the example if the french player simply assumed he had them in reserve. Now if the french player inquired about it and the russian player was untruthful thats a different story. Real world battles historically have tons of instances such as this where making assumptions about the enemy force led to disaster.

I had a 20k game played on the space of 3 tables conbined. During set up I had a 30 man blob squad in front of a bastion and behind an aegis. They had a quad gun and an icarus they were manning as wel as 3 ACs and plasmas. I added Coteaz (I call him cochise) near the front of the squad. He is painted in metalic gold while the rest of my guys are blue and grey. He sticks out a bit. Now during deployment I had a group of rough riders I had forgotten to deploy. I cleared a space for them in front of the blob and promplty got sidetracked. Just before we were about to begin I remembered them, but decided not to deploy them. The hole was large enough for a drop pod and my opponent's marine verterans with combi meltas to land right next to my shadowsword. But this would also place them in range for ive been expecting you. As my opponnent went to the bathroom after we declared deployment done and I failed to sieze, I purposely commented to another friend on how I had forgotten to deploy my riders, but it was too late. I also commented loud enough that I had left myself open to drop pod assault. I then went to get a soda with the other friend and once out of the room I let him in on the gambit. Sure enough first thing in was the drop pod and combat squaded vets popped out. All three were destroyed giving me first blood and sparing my superheavy. I am still pretty sure he knew coshise was there because he purposely deep struck land speeders in the same spot later to the same effect.

Psychological warfare is part of the game. Its no different from setting up a bait unit and letting your opponent think you made a tactical error.

Spider-pope
31-03-2014, 20:55
You mean the position that a general pre-19th century wouldnt have an accurate way to predict what the enemy has..

You are fortunate that you do know what he has, using something called an army list.. if you dont make full use of the resources at your command or you try to game the battle because you want to crush a strong reserve unit, then that is sloppy generalship.

The Russian placed down boxes he brought his army in close at hand.. The French was an idiot for focusing more on the threat of something being there, than the fact he was being slaughtered on the game.

Except it's not a war, it's a game. In war, one should absolutely keep the enemy ignorant of your plans and forces as much as possible through whatever means international law allows. Doing the same in a tabletop wargame however, makes you a dick.

Lanacane
31-03-2014, 21:10
Except it's not a war, it's a game. In war, one should absolutely keep the enemy ignorant of your plans and forces as much as possible through whatever means international law allows. Doing the same in a tabletop wargame however, makes you a dick.

going Huzzah these 10 termies are actually armed with chainfists before charging a superheavy is a dick move.

having an empty box at hand you brought your army in.. isnt.

Spider-pope
31-03-2014, 21:13
going Huzzah these 10 termies are actually armed with chainfists before charging a superheavy is a dick move.

having an empty box at hand you brought your army in.. isnt.

It is when it's with the intent to confuse and/or deceive your opponent to gain an unfair advantage. Neither player in the example comes off as a shining beacon of good sportsmanship, but to blame it all on the French side is wrong.

AndrewGPaul
31-03-2014, 21:16
For plenty of people, attempting to replicate the sort of decision processes of actual generals is the point of it - that includes hidden forces, that sort of thing. I don't know the background of the story that Oakenshield relates; perhaps the two players were old opponents and that sort of maskirovka is part and parcel of their games. After all, it's exactly the dort of thing the Allies did to the Axis forces around D-Day; making the enemy keep significant rexerves to counter a "main force" that would never arrive.

It's also part and parcel of Infinity; that game features semi-secret army lists (only models which deploy on the table at the start of the game are revealed; the identity of your force commander and the very existence of any reserve or hidden deployment troops is not revealed), and the tournament scene seems to manage. It does get rather disappointing that when someone suggests a modicum of "fog of war", most people instantly assume the worst of people. :)

Personally, I find open army lists tedious. Thankfully, I don't play against the sort of people who make that sort of secrecy impossible. It does mean that models should be WYSIWYG, to prevent the sort of thing Lanacane suggests .

Marshal
31-03-2014, 22:14
I'm sorry, but there are certain things that must be told in games and WYSIWYG is not simply going to cover it. I don't know every army let alone every piece of wargear. What does a staff of light do? I don't know what one even looks like to be honest. It would be pretty ignorant to all of a sudden your opponent learns after killing off that unit of Wraithguard with Spiritseer attached that oh, you're not playing regular Eldar, you're playing Iyanden, surprise, that wasn't my warlord, this wraithknight over here actually was. Or to all of a sudden notice that hey, those 2 riptides are in the same unit. What the hell does a Command and Control Node look like? There are just too many variables to say WYSIWYG and call it a day unfortunately.

Menthak
31-03-2014, 22:18
I'm sorry, but there are certain things that must be told in games and WYSIWYG is not simply going to cover it. I don't know every army let alone every piece of wargear. What does a staff of light do? I don't know what one even looks like to be honest. It would be pretty ignorant to all of a sudden your opponent learns after killing off that unit of Wraithguard with Spiritseer attached that oh, you're not playing regular Eldar, you're playing Iyanden, surprise, that wasn't my warlord, this wraithknight over here actually was. Or to all of a sudden notice that hey, those 2 riptides are in the same unit. What the hell does a Command and Control Node look like? There are just too many variables to say WYSIWYG and call it a day unfortunately.

I enjoy that as part of the fun, one game I get toppled by say a Brightlance because of the effect it has on my Landraider. Next time I learn and adapt around it.

Inquisitor Engel
31-03-2014, 22:45
I like this idea.

Naturally having the list written up first and then handed over once the game is done (or if a player calls something into question is good)

This could easily be prevented with a 3rd party, which is easy for an LGS, but hard for a private game.

Marshal
01-04-2014, 02:25
I enjoy that as part of the fun, one game I get toppled by say a Brightlance because of the effect it has on my Landraider. Next time I learn and adapt around it.

Not knowing what a Brightlance does is one thing, but not knowing what a piece of wargear is because there is no standard for what it looks like is another thing entirely and it's what breaks all reliance on WYSIWYG unfortunately for this to work fully and properly.

Ssilmath
01-04-2014, 02:31
but hard for a private game.

If I'm playing a private game against somebody, I already trust them enough to not try and screw me over. That's the fastest way to lose a person to play with.

Marshal
01-04-2014, 03:03
If I'm playing a private game against somebody, I already trust them enough to not try and screw me over. That's the fastest way to lose a person to play with.

It's not always a to screw you over though, it could be a forget or a misplace.

Ssilmath
01-04-2014, 03:11
It's not always a to screw you over though, it could be a forget or a misplace.

Then why would I be upset? Mistakes happen, and since I already trust the other person enough to not try and screw me I don't see how there's going to be much conflict in a private game.

NemoSD
01-04-2014, 03:20
And lets suppose he was, there are 2 possible outcomes;

1) His opponent doesn't meta-game and both parties play the game with the assets on the board/what appears during the game as if they were actual generals at the battle

2) His opponent is a dirty cheating meta-gamer who tries to take advantage of outside knowledge and cripples his army in the expectation of some other force suddenly appearing, whilst the Russian army player plays the game as if he were a General at the battle.

The result - A legit gamer has a legit game against the Russian Army player. A meta-gamer trying to get an advantage from real-world knowledge in a tournament that was meant to have concealed lists/units end up costing himself the game.

As far as I'm concerned, wether the box was labelled deliberately or not, theres no harm, no foul, since this would only give the guy an advantage over people that were trying to circumvent the spirit of the tournament to give themselves the upper hand.

Fact is, a French general would need to worry about reserves, especially reserves with a fearful reputation if there were rumors about them... and a smart russian general would make sure there were rumors.

Scammel
01-04-2014, 08:30
Fact is, a French general would need to worry about reserves, especially reserves with a fearful reputation if there were rumors about them... and a smart russian general would make sure there were rumors.

He would also probably never set eyes upon his opposite number or speak his language, never mind talk to him for hours on end face-to-face. He could also have the trots from unfortunate campaigning conditions. He's also probably in a position where he'd lose his job or even perish in the event of defeat. None of which is, or should be, relevant unless the game system specifically accommodates for it.

Camman1984
01-04-2014, 10:07
The rule is their so if your opponent does decide to be a dick you can hit him over the head with the rulebook (figuratively) and call him on it. If you and your opponent agree it would make a more fun game not to reveal stuff and you trust them not to pull a fast one then go right ahead and play it however you want.

A friend of mine has a blind fixed above his gaming table that can spin round 360 degrees and drops down to table level. We regularly play hidden deployment games as a bit of extra intrigue. We get time before deployment to survey the battlefield for enemy hiding spots, make measurements etc. We then drop the blind and simultaneously deploy. It is not the way the rules are written but we really enjoy it so we do it.

We also do suprise vehicles and reserves from time to time, we trust each other and it provides and interesting tactical game. The number of times i have shot and blown up a rhino charging at me to find out it belonged to some backfield lascannon team is hilarious.

Crazy Ivan
01-04-2014, 10:50
He would also probably never set eyes upon his opposite number or speak his language, never mind talk to him for hours on end face-to-face. He could also have the trots from unfortunate campaigning conditions. He's also probably in a position where he'd lose his job or even perish in the event of defeat. None of which is, or should be, relevant unless the game system specifically accommodates for it.
Not particulary relevant to the subject at hand, but most Russian generals during the Napoleonic wars would have spoken perfect French. And misleading your opponent into thinking the composition and size of your forces is different from reality was a very viable tactic used in all eras - you didn't send your opponents a breakdown of your forces before the battle. Of course, if you want to include misleading your opponent into thinking you have more, less, or different troops than you actually have as a rules mechanic into tabletop warfare, you should also have rules for making pre-battle scouting etc. possible to potentially reveal the ruse.

Scammel
01-04-2014, 11:02
The ultimate extension of this logic (without rules to accommodate it, mind - I'm all for secret deployment mechanics etc.) is to kneecap your opponent while he sleeps and never have to bother with this silly 'game' thing in the first instance.

AndrewGPaul
01-04-2014, 11:13
Not particulary relevant to the subject at hand, but most Russian generals during the Napoleonic wars would have spoken perfect French. And misleading your opponent into thinking the composition and size of your forces is different from reality was a very viable tactic used in all eras - you didn't send your opponents a breakdown of your forces before the battle. Of course, if you want to include misleading your opponent into thinking you have more, less, or different troops than you actually have as a rules mechanic into tabletop warfare, you should also have rules for making pre-battle scouting etc. possible to potentially reveal the ruse.

All of this is why umpires are popular in historical games - it makes controlling the generals' information about their enemies forces, or even their own, much easier. Some people take it further, and don't let the supreme commanders see the table at all - they sit in a separate room, and issue orders based on the information supplied by "dispatch riders" bringing reports from those on the "front lines".

For many gamers, perfect information about the opponents forces, the layout of the battlefield or even the position and morale of one's own troops is a flaw, not something to be encouraged.

aim
01-04-2014, 11:38
The problem is that the Russian player used this to his advantage. He used the real world environment into tricking the French player into thinking he had stuff he really didn't. It would be no different than me bringing empty boxes marked "Riptides" on them to a game of 40k, making my opponent thinking I had a bunch of, or at least 1, Riptide in reserve to either deepstrike or walk on the board. The Russian player knew the French player would react this way or he wouldn't have done it. It, IMHO, shows a lack of tactics on the Russian player part, as surprising your opponent is something a cheese person with very little tactical strategy would do. There's very little different between it and using a deathstar tactic to be honest and has very little strategy behind it. It's no different than sucker punching someone and claiming you won the fight...


Strikes me as a d*ck move that is entirely the fault of the Ruskie (if intentional). You're seriously suggesting that the French player should just somehow 'forget' what he's seen, that he should just pretend to play without that knowledge? It's an unfair, impossible situation and the Russian player is an a*se if it was deliberately engineered.


This. If it was an intentional move by the Russian player it puts the French player in an impossible situation. The Russian player has forced a metagame onto the French whether they want it or not. He has introduced 'real world knowledge' into the game which his opponant has to deal with. Even better he gets away scot free as it's opponant who looks like he's the one who's in the wrong for using 'metagame knowledge'.

You are all missing the point, by a country mile, as often happens here. The only way this affects anyone is if the opponent tries to circumvent the rules of the tounament (i.e. not knowing whats coming, so that the games are more realistic to an in-world generals point of view).

The Russian player is not completely blame free, but the french player is twice as bad and is actively working against the spiit of the tournament, hence why he lost. He crippled his own chances with his (somewhat pathetic) attempts at WAAC playing.

The Russian player took a precaution against people like the French player. It paid off.


Fact is, a French general would need to worry about reserves, especially reserves with a fearful reputation if there were rumors about them... and a smart russian general would make sure there were rumors.

THIS however, is a very good point.

superdupermatt
01-04-2014, 12:22
I guess I'm playing in a blessed area where we declare what is in our force before deploying and what is in reserves? Also, my Tactical Squad 'II' would not been seen dead in Tactical Squads 'IV's Rhino.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

aim
01-04-2014, 12:36
I guess I'm playing in a blessed area where we declare what is in our force before deploying and what is in reserves? Also, my Tactical Squad 'II' would not been seen dead in Tactical Squads 'IV's Rhino.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

Too many people neglect squad markings (myself included). They can actually be pretty important to stuff like this and avoiding arguments without a 40 minute pre-game chat with codex, 3 appendages, an army list and a ready-reckoner.

Kahadras
01-04-2014, 13:59
You are all missing the point, by a country mile, as often happens here. The only way this affects anyone is if the opponent tries to circumvent the rules of the tounament (i.e. not knowing whats coming, so that the games are more realistic to an in-world generals point of view).

The Russian player is not completely blame free, but the french player is twice as bad and is actively working against the spiit of the tournament, hence why he lost. He crippled his own chances with his (somewhat pathetic) attempts at WAAC playing.

The Russian player took a precaution against people like the French player. It paid off.

No we understand that the French player was metagaming. The point is that the Russian player has forced a metagame on the French player by his actions. There's no evidence that either the French or the Russian players were WAAC but there is evidence that the French player was affected by the Russian players actions before the game began. We can either see that as assuming too much, a clever ploy or a bit unsporting depending on how we interpret the story.

tiger g
01-04-2014, 14:35
Where in the rules does it say to share lists with each other?

jeffersonian000
01-04-2014, 14:44
There was no "unfair advantage". The French player made a poor assumption, and paid for it. Per the article, he noticed he was fighting at a disadvantage due his decision to hold his own reserves too long. Yes, he was holding them to counter what he thought would be a heavy flanking unit that never materialized. He tricked himself into ignoring what was in front of him on the table, and delayed bring in his own flankers when he needed them most. That's all on the French player, not his Russian opponent.

One irritating issue I have was my local gaming community is the tendency to list tailor for pick up games. Guy shows up was an army, asks for a game, points are agreed on, and then the would be opponent spends 30mins tailing a list to defeat the army they see the pug brought. Almost always ends in a bad game for the pug. I, however, bring two armies to a LGS, with pre made lists printed in advance at different point levels, and display one army when I arrive as a pug. After points are agreed, if my opponent list tailors, I simply select that other army I brought, and we are both on the same footing as neither side is at a disadvantage because both side are playing lists they weren't prepared for.

Am the dick for baiting and switching? Or are they being dicks for list tailoring? "Surprise! That Sister army you tailored for is not the army I brought to play. Say hello to my Ghostwing!"

SJ


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

aim
01-04-2014, 15:07
No we understand that the French player was metagaming. The point is that the Russian player has forced a metagame on the French player by his actions. There's no evidence that either the French or the Russian players were WAAC but there is evidence that the French player was affected by the Russian players actions before the game began. We can either see that as assuming too much, a clever ploy or a bit unsporting depending on how we interpret the story.

No, the Russian player did not force anything, the French player CHOSE to do it. Thus he forfeits any right to whinge. The tournament clearly wanted people to play with just what they saw on the board in mind, hence the umpires and rules. Just because you think you have external knowledge doesn't mean you have to use it, you chose to meta-game, and its not impossible to choose not to. Look at RP players, they have knowledge outside of the game in almost all instances but they don't use it because that would be meta gaming and is frowned upon in most RP circles.

As jeffersonian000 said, the French player has no one to blame but himself for being a a slimy ****bag and playing a bad game in order to try and take advantage of knowledge he shouldn't have had.

The evidence I have for the French army player being a WAAC player is that he chose to try and utilise his meta 'knowledge' (the knowledge of the future he thought he had) in order to gain an unfair advantage and win. In my books, abandoning the rules and spirit of a game you are playing in order to try and win is WAAC.

Voss
01-04-2014, 15:21
That isn't evidence, just an opinion. At best, both players were trying to play each other, rather than the game. At worst, the Russian player was actively trying to be deceptive, and the French player made a mistake by focusing on the box

Kahadras
01-04-2014, 15:30
No, the Russian player did not force anything, the French player CHOSE to do it.

If I turn up to a game with a box marked Wraithknight and tell my opponant that I've got stuff in reserve I'm making my opponant have to concider the fact that a Wraithknight is gong to hit the table. I might not have a Wraithknight in the box. My reserves might be 3 jetbikes but through the act of showing him the box he's now guilty of metagaming.


That isn't evidence, just an opinion.

+1 to that.

baransiege
01-04-2014, 15:35
This is kind of like showing someone the test answers and then complaining when they cheat. With the best will in the world it is impossible for someone to un-see something and behave as if they were never given a piece of information. The Russian player engineered the situation, this is called Entrapment.

tiger g
01-04-2014, 15:38
You know what people take the game too seriously. We would have been laughing at both the Russian and French players after the game having some fun. But the responses here show 40k "gaming" is just become too serious. (especially as there is very little if any compensation for winning).

Erik_Morkai
01-04-2014, 15:40
I agree that the element of surprise is nice in games. There are ways to keep it fair but of course if you are playing cheating **********. What's the point? Just drop the gloves and hit them with your most vicious list. But for fun games with decent people yeah it's fun.

Also I am starting a campaign for players at my LGS and the game works kinda like Risk or DOW with planets and territories to conquer BUT everyone plays blind. They only see the maps and territories they are allowed to see. Each player receives it's own map pack and as GM I update map packs according to moves being performed. If two players head to the same destination this will generate a match even if they did not explicitly attack one another. If 3 player head to the same place well it becomes a 3-way match. Attack and defense, particular missions might require different FOCs, unit limitations.

Point was to play blind like a real war and use scenarios and games that take people out of the usual meta and comfort zone. The campaign is a mix of regular 40K, Apoc, Kill Team, Zone Mortalis, Escalation, Stronghold Assault. Anything can and will happen. :)

It keeps things SO interesting.

Scammel
01-04-2014, 16:34
No, the Russian player did not force anything, the French player CHOSE to do it. Thus he forfeits any right to whinge. The tournament clearly wanted people to play with just what they saw on the board in mind, hence the umpires and rules. Just because you think you have external knowledge doesn't mean you have to use it, you chose to meta-game, and its not impossible to choose not to. Look at RP players, they have knowledge outside of the game in almost all instances but they don't use it because that would be meta gaming and is frowned upon in most RP circles.

As jeffersonian000 said, the French player has no one to blame but himself for being a a slimy ****bag and playing a bad game in order to try and take advantage of knowledge he shouldn't have had.

The evidence I have for the French army player being a WAAC player is that he chose to try and utilise his meta 'knowledge' (the knowledge of the future he thought he had) in order to gain an unfair advantage and win. In my books, abandoning the rules and spirit of a game you are playing in order to try and win is WAAC.

The Russian player deliberately (if it was deliberately) forced the French player into a position where he would have actively had to play badly to keep things 'fair'. He is utterly, utterly at fault and by far the worse sportsman. It's a dirty trick that would have affected every player he came up against. You can't just unlearn that and there's no way you'll be unaffected by it, for better or worse.

Ssilmath
01-04-2014, 17:02
The Russian player deliberately (if it was deliberately) forced the French player into a position where he would have actively had to play badly to keep things 'fair'. He is utterly, utterly at fault and by far the worse sportsman. It's a dirty trick that would have affected every player he came up against. You can't just unlearn that and there's no way you'll be unaffected by it, for better or worse.

You can always ask if he's got Cossacks in reserve.

Formerly Wu
01-04-2014, 17:11
You can always ask if he's got Cossacks in reserve.
This. Deliberate ploy or not, the French player assumed facts not in evidence. Instead of bothering to check, he chose to metagame. I've not much sympathy for him.

Personally I think it's clever and a reflection of the kind of psychological games/human error that are often at work in real war. I would certainly laugh it off, or find ways to integrate it into the game less adversarially.

A good example of what I'm talking about is an old WD Battlefleet Gothic battle report. The game was Necrons vs Imperials, with fleets assembled so that the forces "looked" roughly equal. Of course they weren't- the Necron ships were much superior- but the rationale was that the Imperial fleet commander didn't know that. Instead, he engaged when he felt he had roughly equivalent forces, and the game became a running withdrawal once his mistake became apparent.

Scammel
01-04-2014, 17:32
You can always ask if he's got Cossacks in reserve.

It depends on whether or not he's obligated to reply in truth. If it was deliberate trick, I wouldn't put much money on him doing so if he isn't.


A good example of what I'm talking about is an old WD Battlefleet Gothic battle report. The game was Necrons vs Imperials, with fleets assembled so that the forces "looked" roughly equal. Of course they weren't- the Necron ships were much superior- but the rationale was that the Imperial fleet commander didn't know that. Instead, he engaged when he felt he had roughly equivalent forces, and the game became a running withdrawal once his mistake became apparent.

I recall that being a deliberate set-up to engineer that kind of narrative scenario (and a good one, too - I liked the fact that someone in the 40k universe retreated).

Lanacane
01-04-2014, 17:32
This is kind of like showing someone the test answers and then complaining when they cheat. .

You mean being taught the right answers and then the slimeball cheats is ok now?

Ssilmath
01-04-2014, 17:40
It depends on whether or not he's obligated to reply in truth. If it was deliberate trick, I wouldn't put much money on him doing so if he isn't.

We don't have that information, so you are making the assumption. But either way, people are taking these games way too damn seriously. Winning a game of 40k is not so important that there is any need to lie about anything, and anybody who would is neither worth playing again nor do they have their priorities straight.

As for me, I painted a letter on the back of each of my Chimeras and then write the corresponding letter down on my list to designate who is where. That makes it easier for me to keep track of to prevent mistakes, and in the event my opponent wants to play the surprise game I can prove my honesty.

Camman1984
01-04-2014, 17:55
I recently got called a cheat by someone who had metagamed himself into defeat. I had been using my iron hand SM armoured list with raiders and dreads. He lost to me quite badly and kept saying how he was at a disadvantage because i had too much armour and i was min maxing. He said we would need a rematch but we never planned anything.

A week later we were back at the club and he said, how about a game? See if i can do better than last time? I agreed and we grabbed a table. He started pulling out MM attack bikes, MM land speeders, a MG equipped command squad, he had clearly written a list to face my iron hands.

The look on his face when i brought out my raptor infantry horde, whose only vehicles are two outflanking rhinos was priceless.

He started huffing about not having the right models on him and spent the game commenting on his lack of effective anti infantry. He lost the game then spent the rest of the evening saying to everyobe else i was a metagamer because i changed my list for our rematch (remember the gamd was unplanned). Most people told him next time not to metagame and bring a more balanced list, but some people agreed i was being unfair.

I had not planned a game with him, all I had done was turn up a week later with a completely different army and yet his assumption turned me into the cheater lol.

Scammel
01-04-2014, 18:01
I recently got called a cheat by someone who had metagamed himself into defeat. I had been using my iron hand SM armoured list with raiders and dreads. He lost to me quite badly and kept saying how he was at a disadvantage because i had too much armour and i was min maxing. He said we would need a rematch but we never planned anything.

A week later we were back at the club and he said, how about a game? See if i can do better than last time? I agreed and we grabbed a table. He started pulling out MM attack bikes, MM land speeders, a MG equipped command squad, he had clearly written a list to face my iron hands.

The look on his face when i brought out my raptor infantry horde, whose only vehicles are two outflanking rhinos was priceless.

He started huffing about not having the right models on him and spent the game commenting on his lack of effective anti infantry. He lost the game then spent the rest of the evening saying to everyobe else i was a metagamer because i changed my list for our rematch (remember the gamd was unplanned). Most people told him next time not to metagame and bring a more balanced list, but some people agreed i was being unfair.

I had not planned a game with him, all I had done was turn up a week later with a completely different army and yet his assumption turned me into the cheater lol.

A great example of the value of balanced lists. It's slightly different to the earlier anecdote, though (again assuming that the set-up described earlier was deliberate) - if, for example, you tell him you're taking a vehicle-heavy IH list, don't be surprised if you don't see a single Heavy Bolter (assuming lists aren't pre-set).

NemoSD
01-04-2014, 18:09
My Dark Angels and IG both get accused of being min-maxed and tailored because both lists are built very balanced, and I change deployment and tactics based on what I see.

For example, with my Dark Angels, against an army with little to no light armor. I will drop pod my dreadnought and shooty termies on turn one into the back field, and pincer them with scouting bikes before pulling up my tactical to provide fire support. Normally catches most infantry list in a very bad place where all their units are exposed to heavy fire from at least one direction, with very little room to maneuver.

If however, they field heavy armor, my dread deploys on foot to provide screening support for my Shroud, preventing it from being nuked on the first turn, and my bikes outflank. (My bikes almost always have melta guns because the bolters are already pretty good anti-infantry) Then the termies deep strike midfield and serve to slow down a force, and split it up. Followed by MM speeders, and outflanking melta armed bikes. Sitting in the back are two devastator units with Librarian support lobbing enhanced shots the enemy. Exact same list as above.

Point of the two above examples is that marines have no need to min-max there list because they can create a flexible list that changes vastly what it fights through subtle changes in deployment.

My guard is the same way, against a strong infantry force, if I out range them, I will set up in V formations, and use my ranged power to funnel the other side into death zones, using PBS with PPs to effectively guard against deep stricking surprises. Weaken Resolve and Psychic Shriek is the most effective anti-deep strike threat I have ever had. Nothing like the face of an opponent when his precision deepstriked 10 man Termie squad takes 14 wounds.

Against marines, tau, or forces that can dig in, I lead charges against their line with tanks, who hide the infantry until they can close to the far midfield, seek cover, and begin to put pressure on my opponents defenses, while Bird delivered vets provide a 5th column to cause some damage to the fortifications and herd the defenders towards my outflankers, and aggressive front line.

Again, exact same list, but through variations in deployment, I am able to be unpredictable, and can mislead my opponent to act in ways he would not normally act. That is where the surprise comes in. To many people tell me exactly what they are going to do before a fight as part of a brag, which just means I prepare for what they are going to do.

Theocracity
01-04-2014, 18:57
It depends on whether or not he's obligated to reply in truth. If it was deliberate trick, I wouldn't put much money on him doing so if he isn't.


Regardless if he was obligated to tell the truth, the French player would at least have gained some knowledge based on the response - at the expense of revealing that the French player knew about the Schrodinger's Cossacks. It seems like to me that the French player decided that not letting the Russian player know that he knew about them was more important than determining if they existed in the first place. Thus, he gets the meta gaming blame in my book.

I also agree with other comments RE: it's just a game.

carldooley
01-04-2014, 19:37
I will say that today at least, you should play a Rhino Rush, and disembark Orcs!

baransiege
01-04-2014, 19:43
You mean being taught the right answers and then the slimeball cheats is ok now?

Erm I said showing them the test answers - not teaching them the subject matter. School's don't teach you exam answers, they teach you subject material that has to then be re-interpreted in the face of questions presented in an exam.

People don't spend their GCSE maths memorising every possible number combination that could come up in an Algebra question.

NemoSD
01-04-2014, 20:04
Erm I said showing them the test answers - not teaching them the subject matter. School's don't teach you exam answers, they teach you subject material that has to then be re-interpreted in the face of questions presented in an exam.

People don't spend their GCSE maths memorising every possible number combination that could come up in an Algebra question.

Actually... that is the point of algebra, to symbolically represent every possible number combination in the form of variable place holders, so that any real value can be quickly and easily assessed... you just described exactly what algebra does...

tiger g
01-04-2014, 20:42
So what I want to know is who has a 40k game coming up. If you do can you put your reserves in a big box marked Cossacks and tell us what happens with the game.

Menthak
01-04-2014, 20:48
Not knowing what a Brightlance does is one thing, but not knowing what a piece of wargear is because there is no standard for what it looks like is another thing entirely and it's what breaks all reliance on WYSIWYG unfortunately for this to work fully and properly.

What wargear doesn't have an established image?

baransiege
01-04-2014, 20:58
Actually... that is the point of algebra, to symbolically represent every possible number combination in the form of variable place holders, so that any real value can be quickly and easily assessed... you just described exactly what algebra does...

Oh for heaven's sake (I have a maths degree), my point was that you learn the rules for algebra, not every permutation that could exist given those rules. Learning to do algebra is not memorising every single possible computation you could come across.

So when you work out the answer to say:
5 * 10 + 4
You apply the rules in order, i.e. 5 * 10. Then 50 + 4.

What you do not do is memorise the answers to 1 * 10 + 4, 2 * 10 + 4, ..., n * 10 + 4, 5 * 1 + 4, 5 * 2 + 4, ..., 5 * n + 4, etc.

So when I said that showing someone the answers to an exam was cheating and he claimed that this was incorrect because memorising the answers to an exam is the same as learning the material - that is what I meant.

Which all came about because you can't expect to show someone the answers to an exam and then expect them to forget what they've seen which was the incident with the Russian and French players.

Lanacane
01-04-2014, 21:03
Erm I said showing them the test answers - not teaching them the subject matter.

that is exactly what teaching the subject matter is.

with the GCSEs you are spending 5 years "showing them the test answer".. if you arent.. you are not doing your job.

Marshal
01-04-2014, 21:10
What wargear doesn't have an established image?

Tau ones in particular. Command and Control Node, Target Lock, Multi-spectrum Sensor Suite, Stimulant Injector, Puretide Engram Neurochip, Drone Controller...and the list goes on.

Or Dark Eldar special characters that don't exist model wise like Sliscus, Sathonyx, Lady Malys or Vect? Is that ones of them or just someone fancy to stand out a bit?

Also, what's the difference between a Shield Eternal and a Storm Shield in terms of looks?

Menthak
01-04-2014, 22:04
Tau ones in particular. Command and Control Node, Target Lock, Multi-spectrum Sensor Suite, Stimulant Injector, Puretide Engram Neurochip, Drone Controller...and the list goes on.

Granted, but you'd still be able to learn which battlesuits have it by experience. So long as your opponent didn't randomly decide and kept it as his army lit described it'd be fine by me.


Or Dark Eldar special characters that don't exist model wise like Sliscus, Sathonyx, Lady Malys or Vect? Is that ones of them or just someone fancy to stand out a bit?

Choose a model to permanently represent them till one is released.


Also, what's the difference between a Shield Eternal and a Storm Shield in terms of looks?

How fancy it looks I'd presume, same as Artificer and regular Power armour.

Monodominant
01-04-2014, 22:21
Oh my...

What kind of madness is going on here?

To the people siding with the Russian and the idea that 'hidden lists or not revealing what is there make sense' I can give 2 scenarios which if you are being honest and not just argumentative or contrary for the shake of it you will see are as insane as baiting an opponent like this.

a) In 40k most (lets say no to Tyranids) will have ways to know if a LR is carrying Terminators, PA marines or Guard.

How? Cause well... unlike me the player, my general, his vessel in orbit and every sensorium can tell me if the LR is heavy loaded, not loaded at all or lightly loaded based on its speed, depth of tracks on the ground etc. Maybe I cant tell but my auspex knows the answer to this from 5 minutes ago...

Also unless that jetbike has some kind of super stealth technology that fails the moment it enters the battlefield, I should know its coming, from where and when cause again... auspex, orbital imaging etc. etc.

So would you play 40k ala Space Hulk? If a unit is not in LOS then maybe I shouldnt tell you what it is, what weapons it carries and who is leading it right? Maybe at most I should place some 'marks' that your auspex would return...

Also why should I be WYSIWYG? How do the Orks know what weapons/gear my Tau have? How do the IG know my GK (the super secretive noone knows chapter) carry Psicannons?

Well... they shouldnt.

But because its a game... you tell your opponent that in fact this shiny sword here is a force sword, you tell him who your sergeant and your warlord is (although again... how do the Tyranids know who my warlord is? How do they know where the relic I am going for is? Maybe we shouldnt even reveal objectives to them!) and you share your list.

Now I will grant you that in a fully fluffy game, as part of the campaign and when playing with your mates you can do tricks like this... if agreed. But it could be a scenario on its own (play the old scenario Ambush because what looked like a convey of civilians turns out to be a vanguard of Space Marines) or something.

b) About the Russian vs French in particular...

So since you want to guy the fluff vs metagame way then the French guy should suddenly take one of his units from the table and place it elsewhere. He could tell the Russian ' hey you know what... it was a decoy. A bunch of farmers wearing uniforms of the army were in that position while in reality my unit maneuvered behind your unit is now opening fire. Its also my turn cause who heard of taking turns in war! What? WHat do you mean its a game! I thought we were real Generals in the Napoleonic era!!!'

Or better yet...

'Actually dude there is no battle... we used horses to make smoke and dust appear in the horison but while your army was setting up my whole army bypassed you and attacked the city you were protecting/resupply column/base camp/HQ. Lets just say that your guys wait for a few hours to see what happens and when noone shows up and they realise what is up they return to find we won already. Please give me a 20-0 result for this game...'

Or you know... any of the other dozens of options that happen in real war but not in reality IN A GAME.

DoctorTom
01-04-2014, 23:01
Also unless that jetbike has some kind of super stealth technology that fails the moment it enters the battlefield, I should know its coming, from where and when cause again... auspex, orbital imaging etc. etc.


Ah, you mean the Shadowseer that's making you think the jetbikes are 50 miles north? Weren't expecting the Harlequin jetbikes, were you? :p

Formerly Wu
01-04-2014, 23:32
b) About the Russian vs French in particular...

So since you want to guy the fluff vs metagame way then the French guy should suddenly take one of his units from the table and place it elsewhere. He could tell the Russian ' hey you know what... it was a decoy. A bunch of farmers wearing uniforms of the army were in that position while in reality my unit maneuvered behind your unit is now opening fire. Its also my turn cause who heard of taking turns in war! What? WHat do you mean its a game! I thought we were real Generals in the Napoleonic era!!!'

Or better yet...

'Actually dude there is no battle... we used horses to make smoke and dust appear in the horison but while your army was setting up my whole army bypassed you and attacked the city you were protecting/resupply column/base camp/HQ. Lets just say that your guys wait for a few hours to see what happens and when noone shows up and they realise what is up they return to find we won already. Please give me a 20-0 result for this game...'

Or you know... any of the other dozens of options that happen in real war but not in reality IN A GAME.
So if any out-of-game situations enter into a game, all rules are invalid and we're reduced to the level of children playing pretend? Don't be obtuse.

The Russian player set up (intentionally or not) a situation that allowed the French player to deceive himself, and then took advantage of that error. There's no evidence that the Russian player lied or otherwise justified his actions by "it's war;" and since we don't know about the house rules in play I'm assuming it was in the French player's power to clarify the situation. You can see it as fair play or not, but taking advantage of your opponent's mistakes is certainly part of the game. It's no more informed by "it happens in war so it should happen on the table" than it is by... whatever situation it is you're describing.

Monodominant
01-04-2014, 23:49
In the fluff the Night Lords strike, slaughter villages, cities, Hives and other chapter forces without leaving traces, without taking losses and without the enemy fighting back.

In my next game I will tell my opponent he lost cause I am playing Night Lords.

Or you know... I will keep the army in my suitcase and tell him eventually my reinforcements are coming and then go for coffee with my friends. If he actually doesnt believe me and leaves I will come back, unpack my army and say I won cause he didnt wait there but metagamed into thinking I was bluffing...

or something...

Formerly Wu
01-04-2014, 23:57
In the fluff the Night Lords strike, slaughter villages, cities, Hives and other chapter forces without leaving traces, without taking losses and without the enemy fighting back.

In my next game I will tell my opponent he lost cause I am playing Night Lords.

Or you know... I will keep the army in my suitcase and tell him eventually my reinforcements are coming and then go for coffee with my friends. If he actually doesnt believe me and leaves I will come back, unpack my army and say I won cause he didnt wait there but metagamed into thinking I was bluffing...

or something...
Okay. Have fun.

tiger g
02-04-2014, 01:47
As someone playing wargames for over 40yrs what the Russian player did is part of the game of wargaming. Random terrain has been part of wargaming since the 50's. So for napolionics the unit may find a stash of wine which will effect their performance. Wargames attempt to recreate situations on the battlefield, strategic, physiological or otherwise. To be able to deal with the unexpected was one of the important things in the game. About 20 years ago a different breed started playing. The wanted everything exact and calculable. This resulted in things like math hammer and the expectation a unit would perform exactly as wanted. This is like the skills in a video game where once the code is broken you know how to beat it. I think gw wants the surprise back. This is how the original designers started. Role playing and the gm is important. The new style of game is great for some but not fun for others. There is no right answer but the game as designed and written would love the Russian players move. The tournament player and the current pick up game player has not learned this style.

Lanacane
02-04-2014, 01:59
In the fluff the Night Lords strike, slaughter villages, cities, Hives and other chapter forces without leaving traces, without taking losses and without the enemy fighting back.

In my next game I will tell my opponent he lost cause I am playing Night Lords.

Or you know... I will keep the army in my suitcase and tell him eventually my reinforcements are coming and then go for coffee with my friends. If he actually doesnt believe me and leaves I will come back, unpack my army and say I won cause he didnt wait there but metagamed into thinking I was bluffing...

or something...

i sense your opponents don't like you that much..

The reason, alas, eludes me..

Marshal
02-04-2014, 02:25
Granted, but you'd still be able to learn which battlesuits have it by experience. So long as your opponent didn't randomly decide and kept it as his army lit described it'd be fine by me.



So, you're saying that at some point in time, they're going to have to tell me what is in their army prior to the game then?




Choose a model to permanently represent them till one is released.



Again though, without knowing at some point in time, you'll never know, and this will change between opponents. What I might use as Vect, you might use something totally different.




How fancy it looks I'd presume, same as Artificer and regular Power armour.



Now you're making assumptions...

Gangremond
02-04-2014, 05:18
This conversation made me think of templates - everyone should have them. If you pull out your templates, large and small blast templates as well as the flamer template, your opponent probably assume that you might be making use of these sometime during the game. It is also possible that you brought them out just in case your opponent might need them. Either way, the opponent might spread his / her models out just in case something uses the large blast template...

NemoSD
02-04-2014, 05:49
When I am setting up against know list tailorers, even though my list is preset, I will not deploy any of my tanks with their actual guns on them, until we exchange lists/begin deployment. Then I just match up the guns based off my list. They were always surprised when none of my tanks had a demo cannon, or battle cannon. I normally advance my infantry with the tanks, and big templates are bad for me. :-p

rocdocta
02-04-2014, 07:08
I Have no problem with the boxes labelled COSSACKS. If those same boxes had LANDRAIDERZ on them, then would the other player have to expect land raiders would be rollin?

Axeman1n
02-04-2014, 07:43
I was sick of getting tailored against, and was warned against playing against a certain individual, so I showed up with my whole IG army. I spread my tanks out in the staging area provided by the FLGS and when it came time to deploy I deployed my list that I had prepared ahead of time, the one with only infantry. Wouldn't you know it, that guy had a whole lot of Melta's and Lascannons in his list.

tiger g
02-04-2014, 18:19
Lol that was great :))

Lanacane
02-04-2014, 18:44
I was sick of getting tailored against, and was warned against playing against a certain individual, so I showed up with my whole IG army. I spread my tanks out in the staging area provided by the FLGS and when it came time to deploy I deployed my list that I had prepared ahead of time, the one with only infantry. Wouldn't you know it, that guy had a whole lot of Melta's and Lascannons in his list.

same sorta thing happened with me

I played against a staffers personal army after he challenged me to a game when he saw me building a rhino, he assumed, for my BA in 5th.

He turned up with a heavy AT Tau army.. against a sniper heavy footslogging BA army.

Tycho in with Termies w/AssCan was the highest "AV" i had on the board.




Apparently i was a bad sport for not telling him i wasnt running MechBA.. He didnt ask, and i didnt even know what army he had.. After a chat with teh manager.. he spent all the previous day tailoring the best AT anti-ba list

Just goes to show that people who try to meta game rarely win..

gwarsh41
04-04-2014, 17:03
The one time I have been dumbfounded in a game of Warhammer was when my opponent shouted "Suprise Reveal! My Necron Lord have a mindshackle scarab!" after I challenged him.

But I agree, it would be funnier if you could hide your armylist and what is in transports and what not.

Why I always ask what wargear a unit has if I am unsure about hitting them.

Any who, way back in the day when I was getting into the game in 5th I played some "surprise" games with friends. It was nothing really that special. Try it out against a friend!