Communication While playing a tournament game and stalling last round.

[Matthaeus]

Or when (as I did for an embarrassingly long time before I got wise) when someone asks very specific questions about something like Gaze of Menoth before committing a heavy beast, their opponent answers truthfully, allows them to charge, then says "... And the Avatar's Enlivened, so he moves away..."

Shouldn't there be a token to represent Enliven, in this case ?

Like I said earlier my issue is with Half Answers then adding information once its to your advantage = terrible person. I never expect for you tell me what you are going to do. But If I ask if you way to increase a threat range and you tell me no and then tell me you do after the fact you clearly an jerk.

We get it, lying is bad. Do note that nobody is saying it isn't.

[Tyr852]

This is why I keep all my cards in 3x3 pages and hand both pages over at the start of the game or when ever they want to see a card so that my opponent can read them as a army rather then piecemeal during the game and then the onus is on them and not me. I'm in the camp of if asked I will provide what ever info you want but you and abilities that relate to the model (like dodge , hyper aggressive ect) but if we start playing 20 questions and not Warmachine you get all my cards again , if I wanted to play the game for you I could have stayed home

[West996]

There seems to be a lot of debate on this, but to me it is fairly straight forward.

As per the rules you must share all your records, including damage and your stats with the opponent at anytime, with out hesitation.

This is easy guys. Now if you are playing timed turns and your opponent starts asking you questions on your turn. I would simply hand him the card in question and continue doing what I'm doing. If it is possible I might even place my cards in such as way that my opponent has easy access to them and can help himself.

If he is asking me to explain something on his turn, he is using his time so I would oblige him. Keep in mine here the rule still only states that you must share your records and stats which would include your cards.

Now a tournament is a competitive environment. I think that if your opponent asks a simple stat or ability question you can simply answer him. Also, don't be intentionally thick because that is deceptive. If you have buffs in play, those should be mentioned at the same time. (eg. What is the defense of that unit? The defense of that unit is 'XX' and Defenders Ward is currently active making it 'XX'.) Anything less then that explanation is being deceptive.

However if your opponent starts to ask synergistic questions, handing him the cards in question is really all you have to do.

Anything more then that and you are going over and above to be helpful in a competitive environment. It also covers your butt because just as he can forget things, you could forget or over look something that you later remember and choose to use.

For example, maybe you forget about boundless charge and so you give your threat range not including it. Then on your turn after you look over the table you remember and want to use it. Your opponent may accuse you as deception because you left that out of your explanation. That is why you should have just handed over your cards and asked him if he had any questions.

When you hand over your cards though, gracious about it. Don't hand over your whole army. Here is an another example.

"How far can your Manhunter charge?"

"By himself he has a 9" charge range, but I do have buffs that can support him. Here is my man hunter card and my caster's spell card."

Give your opponent the card for the model in question, along with the cards of any model that can buff that model in some way that would affect your original answer.

In this example your opponent might have a question after reading your caster card.

"Oh so with boundless charge your Man Hunter could get to an 11" charge?"

"Yes that's right."

If he glosses over the card and misses it, and a competitive environs like a tournament and asks no further questions, that's on him.

Now if you want to be a gracious teacher and you don't want to point it out to him because you've sensed that he has missed it, you can do that, but you have fulfilled your obligation by handing him the card. That is when personal preference comes in. If you are the type of player that doesn't want to win to an opponent slip up, well then you are telling him as much for you as you are for him.

To continue with the example:

*Opponents hands cards back and continues with his turn.*

"So did you notice that I have access to boundless charge which could extend the Man Hunters range?"

I think this is a pretty safe way to play it and I would have a hard time imagining any accusations of being unsportsman coming your way if you play this way. You also are not giving your whole strategy away.

In casual play it is a whole different story with too many circumstances to really go over. Suffice to say in a casual setting I usually find my opponent and I discussing everything out in the open, even proposed strategy. When we play casually part of the fun is teaching and learning from each other.

[Kingbobb]

Wow, you can really separate the people in this thread. People who I want to play and People who can go play with themselves. If giving half answers is your best strategy please tell me up front so I can play someone else. Its not that difficult to answer a question correctly, you know what your opponent is asking, why play shady games.

This is my hangup. If someone asks me "what's X's ARM." Do I assume they mean Current ARM? Do I assume they mean current ARM? In my case, I'll likely ask a followup question to know which they mean, but to place the burden of interpretation on the responder is just asking for trouble.

Here's a better case: Say what you mean. If you want to know what base ARM is because you have a spell that uses base ARM, say Base ARM. If you want current ARM because you're going to attack, say current ARM. Don't just say ARM and expect your opponent to know which it is, and why you want to ask.

I'll happily give you my abilities and capabilities, but I won't try and guess why you want to know something, or try to figure out if the question you asked me is actually the question you meant to ask me. If I win because you don't ask me the right question and thus don't account for something, then we've both won because now you've learned something, the hard way, that you're likely not to forget.

[Matthaeus]

EDIT: Also from a competitive/bragging rights stand point: don't you want to be "the best?"

Of course. And if I'm caught by something I didn't see coming, I'm not the best.

Nobody is arguing against full disclosure, but as curious as it seems, people apparently have diverging notions of it.

[West996]

To those of you who are tight-lipped about this subject, I get it. I really do. There are excellent reasons for a "survival of the fittest" attitude in a competitive setting, and I believe your stance is fully supported by the rules and not unsportsmanlike.

However, why not challenge yourself to win even with full disclosure? You'll respect yourself more for it, and so will your opponents. You may even make lasting friends out of it. You'll certainly build a good reputation. You'll also help build interest in the game by giving less skilled players insight into good play habits.

Of course you may have lower tournament placement because of it, but how much do you really care about that compared to the things mentioned above?

EDIT: Also from a competitive/bragging rights stand point: don't you want to be "the best?" You may win every tourney without full disclosure, but do you think that makes you better than a guy with a similar record who uses full disclosure? I know when I think of who the best players are, I give priority to the ones who need less handicaps to get there and I'm sure others feel the same.

I also see where you are coming from on this stand point. On the same token though that depends on what level of the game I am on. If i win every tournament It might just be because I know my opponents armies well enough already that they can't pull any 'gotcha' moves on me. Not to say I am going to do that to my opponent, but If I am asking less questions because I am at a point in my game where I know most the answers and you are trying to say I'm only winning because all I am doing is handing you my cards rather then explain every potential trick up my sleeve I might just tell you to play more games until you know my army as well as I already know yours.

[PG_petegrrrr]

The "be the best thing" goes both ways.

If you wanna be the best, learn to read your opponent's cards instead of asking him to force feed you his list strategies

Just sayin.

I never ask my opponent to explain what his buff syngergy to me. I just ask for the cards. If he has come up with such a clever plan that even after looking at the cards I am stumped as to what is coming next, then that player deserves to beat me, and I will probably learn something valuable from the experience and hopefully won't have it happen to me again.

[West996]

The "be the best thing" goes both ways.

If you wanna be the best, learn to read your opponent's cards instead of asking him to force feed you his list strategies

Just sayin.

I never ask my opponent to explain what his buff syngergy to me. I just ask for the cards. If he has come up with such a clever plan that even after looking at the cards I am stumped as to what is coming next, then that player deserves to beat me, and I will probably learn something valuable from the experience and hopefully won't have it happen to me again.

I mean that is part of the game after all. Out thinking your opponent. If every turn you you are going back and fourth explaining every potential threat to your enemy and him you that could make for a good learning game, but at that point you are almost just playing for each other and leaving up to the dice to decide who comes out on top.

This is a battle, on the field of battle if you notice your opponent is moving up the field to far to fast you don't send a messenger and let him know he is going to get mortared if he keeps it up. You blast him. He knew you had mortars, he knew what they could do, he just might not have known how fast you could move them in to position.

If you are playing chess and the person across the table says, "If I move my rook here can you check mate me?", and you tell him "No." But then in 3 moves you check mate him, does he have the right to tell you that you deceived him?

In chess everyone knows what each piece can do, the same is true for Warmachine if you have access to all the cards. But if you start telling your opponent. "If you do that its check mate in 6 moves." "If you do that I'll take your rook in 2 moves." You are going to find it difficult to play a competitive game.

[PG_beatdown]

I feel like we are playing a game with open information.
As such hiding stuff is a bit unsavory.

I believe I saw the situation this references and thought it was an extremely questionable position that the other player took.

My usual line of questions is
What is the maximum threat for Model X?
Ok, you lost your axer so do you have any other movement buffs or tricks?

From here if they still do something I would think it was a bit shady.
The thing is the best players in the game are most often the most open. This is a game where we are trying to win through tactics and strategy and not through gotchas.
My second round opponent at Diecon is a great example. I asked him about his tricks with Kromac. We talked about leap and charge and how warpath wouldnt work.
I was about to move my caster and he said wait dont forget I can get another inch if I push him.

That is how the game should be played.

[bouncymischa]

Nobody is arguing against full disclosure, but as curious as it seems, people apparently have diverging notions of it.

Probably because people have diverging notions of how the game should be played, of the sort of person they want to be, and what sort of game experiences they want to have.

Consider the fact that many people will offer caveats for how much information they're wiling to provide -- for example, if a player who's only been playing a month and just put together his first-ever 35 point list asks you to play, will the same rules about "full disclosure" apply as they would against a veteran player with several Steamroller wins under his belt playing against you at an event? If not, why not? If the rules of full disclosure are that simple, wouldn't they be the same in every situation?

[PG_petegrrrr]

Only two different sets of rules. One for casual games, one for tournaments.

In a casual game, I will tell you whatever you want.

In a tournament game, regardless of opponent, I will show you any card you want, and explain any rule or spell you may not understand, but I will not go point by point through stacking buffs or synergy for you.

That's it really. Pretty simple.

[West996]

I feel like we are playing a game with open information.
As such hiding stuff is a bit unsavory.

I believe I saw the situation this references and thought it was an extremely questionable position that the other player took.

My usual line of questions is
What is the maximum threat for Model X?
Ok, you lost your axer so do you have any other movement buffs or tricks?

From here if they still do something I would think it was a bit shady.
The thing is the best players in the game are most often the most open. This is a game where we are trying to win through tactics and strategy and not through gotchas.
My second round opponent at Diecon is a great example. I asked him about his tricks with Kromac. We talked about leap and charge and how warpath wouldnt work.
I was about to move my caster and he said wait dont forget I can get another inch if I push him.

That is how the game should be played.

That is your opinion.

Where the gray area is, just how much you tell. As has been said, where is the line between open forum and revealing your strategy. At one point in your post you say the game is about tactics and strategy, which is using all the tools at your disposal. I believe this contradicts your example at the end of your post.

Your opponent reminded you of 'push' just before you moved your caster. 'Push' is a base rule, its not even on his cards. It is a rule you should know and you should take into account when you move your models. He did not need to remind of this. If he had not, and he pushed and got you, that would be tactics.

Should I be reminding my opponent I can throw his model into another? Should I be saying things like, "You can hide your support piece there but I can just slam your warjack into him." I think not. And that is what your example suggests.

What we are discussing here is revealing the stats and abilities of your models to your opponent. You should not be surprised that Beast-09 has reach because I will go out of my way to tell you that when I deploy him and offer you the card. Many WarJacks do not have reach so this is worth pointing out. If I then field someone who can grant Beast-09 pathfinder, I will also point that out at the beginning of the game and any time in-between when you ask about it.

However, if you watch that support piece follow Beast-09 around for two turns, don't ask any questions and then I see you placing your Warcaster a few inches behind a linear obstacle to prevent Beast from charging, I am not going to say "I can charge over that if I buff Beast." Not in a tournament setting anyway. That was your tactical error.

[bouncymischa]

Only two different sets of rules. One for casual games, one for tournaments.

In a casual game, I will tell you whatever you want.

In a tournament game, regardless of opponent, I will show you any card you want, and explain any rule or spell you may not understand, but I will not go point by point through stacking buffs or synergy for you.

That's it really. Pretty simple.

But it's still a line drawn in the sand, and there will always be other people that will disagree on its placement. I can recall past discussions about this topic where there were people who would apply strict rules about disclosure even in casual games. On the other hand, there's people who will be more magnamonius about information even in a tournament event.

In the end, it's just another big grey, nebulous area, where there is no real correct answer, just everyone's own personal beliefs about it.

[Ordrek]

Good players will still win by better play even if they give up the goods on their strategy/synergies/whatever, and it won't be just about the dice. This is honestly not meant to disparage anyone, but if you feel giving up this information seriously jeopardizes your chances of winning against someone who needs to ask for such information, you probably aren't that good in the first place.

Yes; the best players will already know what your army does and that a legitimate part of "skill." The ones who don't? Well... they probably aren't a threat anyway so why hide the ball? If you can't win with perfect information on both sides, you're just not that good.

[Ordrek]

I want to expand on my previous post without editing: The best players will make their moves in such a way that the BEST move by the opponent is as ineffective as possible. If you are good at doing this, you don't care if the opponent has perfect information. You can even explain the nuance of the situation and it doesn't change anything: their BEST move isn't enough.

If you don't know how to create scenarios where the opponents BEST move isn't that great, you're not that good. Yes, dicings happen, but they are usually very controllable with the right list building and strategy.

For anyone who doesn't realize this yet, the most powerful tools for creating these situations are those involving movement/positioning options because things like LOS usually provide absolute barriers to options that ignore dice rolls. It is no coincidence that the fastest factions in the game (Cryx/Legion) are considered by many to be the most powerful.

[Ysthrall]

While I think petegrrr has summarised this pretty well, I'd just like to comment.

There seems to be, in this and (AFAICT) every other wargaming hobby, a spectrum of playstyles, from

"I will leave you crying in frustration and incomprehension, ready to ragequit the hobby, if that is what it takes to win"

at one end of the scale, and

"I will carefully help you to play this game, give you hints and suggestions, warn you on occasion, but still do my best to beat you"

at the other end. Luckily, it does seem to be wieghted in Warmahordes slightly more towards the latter. I agree, in a competitive tournement, you don't have to say everything. My usual question is "what do you have in that list that can speed things up?", which is usually only one or two things, asked during setup and having offered my opponent my caster cards. For love of Morrow, there are over 100 casters now, who's familiar with ALL of them?

If I am asked for an ARM value, I will likely say "X base, (+any relevant buffs), at the moment..." and then give an evil grin. Which I consider a fair hint that I may have other tricks to play.

But guys, please. This is a game we play for fun. If you have fun by beating your opponent through circumlocution, evasion and occasionally outright deception, then while you may win, people won't want to play with you again...

[PG_petegrrrr]

It's not even about winning in my case. It's about laziness.

It takes a lot of practice and memorization to get a lot of rules down for different models in different factions, but what is the point of any of it if you have to sit their and regurgitate every possible combo for your opponent anyway? Why would anyone even bother learning rules for anything they didn't have in their lists?

Also, categorizing this as evasion is just silly. No one is hiding anything, we just WANT YOU TO READ THE CARD FOR YOURSELF.

If making you read a card is such a horrific challenge that you refuse to do it and demand to be spoon fed instead, maybe you should practice a bit more before you play in a tourny.

[Sinsation]

During a game, when a player makes a measurement for any reason he must share the information with his opponent.

Quick follow-up on this. Technically, if I have harbinger behind a unit of errants with jacks/support/etc. in my control area as well, and I do a control area sweep for the full 20", shouldn't I be revealing to my opponent the distance from the harbinger to every model in my control area, and the distance from that model to the edge of my control area as well, since tape measurer has markings that show all of that?

[PG_petegrrrr]

If you don't know how to create scenarios where the opponents BEST move isn't that great, you're not that good. Yes, dicings happen, but they are usually very controllable with the right list building and strategy.
.

You completely lost me with that sentence, as I can't think of a great player that I have not seen just get wrecked by terrible dice/smashed by hot dice in a big game before. When two people of similar skill play, dice is probably the biggest factor, along with list match up.

EDIT for Sinsation:

No, you just reveal how far you were measuring from her base. Since you didn't measure to any model, you have no other measurements to share besides her control arc.

[bouncymischa]

It's not even about winning in my case. It's about laziness.

It takes a lot of practice and memorization to get a lot of rules down for different models in different factions, but what is the point of any of it if you have to sit their and regurgitate every possible combo for your opponent anyway? Why would anyone even bother learning rules for anything they didn't have in their lists?

Also, categorizing this as evasion is just silly. No one is hiding anything, we just WANT YOU TO READ THE CARD FOR YOURSELF.

If making you read a card is such a horrific challenge that you refuse to do it and demand to be spoon fed instead, maybe you should practice a bit more before you play in a tourny.

You seem to have a very negative view of your opponents, and I can't help but wonder if a game against you would be an enjoyable experience at all. o.o;

[PG_petegrrrr]

I haven't said anything about my opponents in this entire thread. I have just explained how I prefer to play and why.

If anything, my previous opponent's have given me too high standards. For years I would get whooped on by Bulldog and Neutralyze and the rest of the detroit and Toledo crew, who all have great table top manners and extremely clean play, so now I expect and encourage a similar style of play whenever I can.

I will not snap at you for asking questions. I will quite happily hand over any card you want, or answer any question you may have about an ability or spell on those cards.

And once again, I would like to point out that this is tournament etiquette, not what people do for casual games.

If you constantly ask me to give detailed explanations about how I can stack buffs and what exactly that means for nearly every model I field, I will direct you to the relevant cards and answer questions, but although I would be very polite, I would probably go out of my way to never play you again, as constantly maing demands on your opponent that you could just simply find out yourself in a few seconds takes away there ability to concentrate on their own planning during your turn, which is frankly kinda rude and not my style.

[Sinsation]

EDIT for Sinsation:

No, you just reveal how far you were measuring from her base. Since you didn't measure to any model, you have no other measurements to share besides her control arc.

I get that, but when you have measurements for everything in-between, that's where it seems weird. For instance, Irusk 2. I pull out my tape measurer to 14" during my turn, noting the 4" mark, and do a quick sweep that takes maybe a single second, where my Drakhun is in front of me and slightly to the left, and I've got an infantry wall of WGI in front of me. I've now measured my control area, command range, martial discipline range, and counter-charge range, being able to prep myself to quickly take note of distances, while my opponent gets surprised by the sweep and well, good luck getting those measurements.

I get what you're saying, if you were measuring just the 20", but I don't think I've seen people play with tape measurers that don't have the other marks on them, just total distance. Reading that tape measure upside down from across the table while they quickly sweep is just not feasible. Casual games, of course you wouldn't, but in a tourney game people definitely try to use their control area as proxy measurements or to get information that their opponent wouldn't be able to get. Seems like exactly the thing that rules are trying to prevent. Likewise, I've seen people measure from outside of control area inward, to specifically get around showing distance from casters.

[PG_petegrrrr]

Correct, but you are measuring to the end of the tape measurer. I understand your point, but otherwise there is just chaos, and that's just how it works at every single tournament or con I have ever been too or judged at.

However hiding measurements from your opponent is flat out illegal. If they are measuring in such a way as to hide the distance to their caster while checking control, they must still share that info with the opponent. (because a caster is always a fixed point of measurement when using it's control area)

[West996]

You seem to have a very negative view of your opponents, and I can't help but wonder if a game against you would be an enjoyable experience at all. o.o;

I think you are taking what he is saying in a negative way because they is how it is coming out in the discussion. Maybe this will help.

I've read the rule book and I have read my cards and I use that information to play the game. Any synergies or tactics that I think up that are not printed directly on my card are my own.

I will share my cards with you, I will even read my card to you if you want. As long as I read my cards word for word you have all the same information I do and you should play your game accordingly.

I'll say it again in case anyone missed it, and please don't take that as being snarky, this is what I think is important.

You and I have access to the same information to play this game, You have access at any time you want to all my cards as well as the rule book and I yours.

Anything that is NOT on my cards that I have thought up is my own. That is what strategy and tactics are. Anything beyond your cards that you choose to tell your opponent is a gift, not a requirement. This is strictly speaking in a tournament setting.

Now if you are more giving then others that is great, but that doesn't mean I'm not playing it right, or that I am being sneaky.

Look at it this way,

One of the posters above said that his opponent reminded him he could push a beast to get an extra inch when he was playing his caster.

Lets say both players are playing the exact same list, exact same cards. Should I have to tell you I can push a beast to gain an inch when you are placing your caster?

If you were playing an identical list to someone else, what questions do you think would be appropriate for him to ask you?

I think this is an interest question because it puts into perspective that both players have the same access to to information, the only difference is player skill at this point, which is the determining factor.

So is it player skill to remember that Beast has reach? Or that Jack has pathfinder? Or that caster can cast boundless charge?

Again I am not saying to hide it if you are asked, but how far does that 'responsibility' go?

[Ordrek]

This, like many topics, is one that comes down to differences in basic personal values and those holding the opposing viewpoint will never be swayed by mere intellectual arguments on a forum.

I don't see other gamer's as "lazy" for not memorizing the nuances of thousands of different rule combinations, and I see no reason to punish them for not having this knowledge. I also don't think it is realistic or fun to expect my opponent to "learn" something like this is a stressful timed situation such as in the middle of tournament play. I would rather make it fun for both of us and tell him (occassionally her) what's up and allow them to make what they feel is the best decision. That decision may not work out well for them depending on how well they thought it through or how the dice turn out, but they will have the satisfaction of walking away from the table knowing they were able to give the best game they could rather than getting steamrolled by an unknown.

These people (other gamers) are my friends, even if I don't know this particular one personally. But maybe you're one of millions of people in this world that think you are "fiercely independent" and part of that mindset means leaving others in the dust when they can't take the heat. I hope these folks come to realize that tThe top" is a cold, lonely place when you don't bring others with you.

[PG_petegrrrr]

One again, please explain how very politely handing a card to someone and answering all their questions is "punishing" them?

Hyperbole like that is why internet discussions generally devolve so badly and so fast. So because someone hands other players cards when asked about rules, explains them, and does all of this in a polite cheerful matter, he is apparently doomed to some friendless, bitter journey to the top, where he will have some sort of "It's a wonderful life" esque epiphany about the true value of friendship?

I have no idea how that correlation even remotely makes sense unless you completely misinterpret, misunderstand, and then take out of context generally everything that has been said, and even that it's one hell of a stretch, lol

[PG_petegrrrr]

To give an example, because apparently left to the immagination some people think that while handing over cards people will be screaming in faces and shaking fists, here is an example of how this works.

Player 1: "Do you have any way to increase the threat range on that bronzeback?"

Player 2: "Yes, I have a spell that can do it and a the bronzeback has an animus that can. Here are there cards"

Player 1: "so Abuse is not an upkeep. You can cast it multiple times?"

Player 2: "Yes, I can put it on more than one beast if I have enough fury, but each takes damage. But same name effects don't stack, so I will only ever get 2 spd bonus on any given beast. Anything else?"

Player 1: "Nope, all good"


And not a punch was thrown, nor a voice raised in anger. Truly what a horrifying punishment player 1 had to endure. The humanity of it all!

[Ordrek]

Pete, we each understand the other's point here. We just disagree. I don't want to watch an opponent flounder and lose because of a misunderstanding. You seem to be ok with this happening for some well-reasoned reasons, part of which includes giving them what they are ostensibly asking for rather than offering information they are probably trying to glean from your answer.

You wash your hands because you gave them what they asked for, even if you understood that they probably wanted something more or something else. If you are claiming that you didn't/couldn't understand what they were actually after, you're probably terrible at reading people or being intellectually dishonest.

[Draekon Darkstorm]

I usually include all my buffs when asked what DEF/ARM is for a model or unit. When asked about threat range I include what buffs/spells I can use to increase it. That doesn't tell my opponent what I plan to do, just what I COULD do. Yes, my Bronzeback has a threat range of 4+3+2+2+3+0.5 with eMakeda if I wanted it to. Does that mean I plan on using him to charge that far, no. Does that dictate any of my actions, or my strategies for what I plan on doing, no. It is simply my way of trying to keep the game moving at a quick pace. Just handing the persons the cards and asking them to figure it out, while legal, can also be a jerk move. They probably don't know your army as well as you do, they probably won't see all the combos like you do, especially if they didn't ask to see all the relevant cards to what they are looking for information on. Pulling off the super combo and using the excuse that you had my cards, to bad you didn't see it, isn't very nice either.

Draekon

[Murkhadh]

To give an example, because apparently left to the immagination some people think that while handing over cards people will be screaming in faces and shaking fists, here is an example of how this works.

Player 1: "Do you have any way to increase the threat range on that bronzeback?"

Player 2: "Yes, I have a spell that can do it and a the bronzeback has an animus that can. Here are there cards"

Player 1: "so Abuse is not an upkeep. You can cast it multiple times?"

Player 2: "Yes, I can put it on more than one beast if I have enough fury, but each takes damage. But same name effects don't stack, so I will only ever get 2 spd bonus on any given beast. Anything else?"

Player 1: "Nope, all good"


And not a punch was thrown, nor a voice raised in anger. Truly what a horrifying punishment player 1 had to endure. The humanity of it all!

Yea but that smacks of your hoping he doesn't notice something and possibly trying to make him use more of the clock.


A much easier example


player 1. : "Whats that bronzebacks max threat range?

player 2. : "12.5 inches."


DONE.

[PG_petegrrrr]

Pete, we each understand the other's point here. We just disagree. I don't want to watch an opponent flounder and lose because of a misunderstanding. You seem to be ok with this happening for some well-reasoned reasons, part of which includes giving them what they are ostensibly asking for rather than offering information they are probably trying to glean from your answer.

You wash your hands because you gave them what they asked for, even if you understood that they probably wanted something more or something else. If you are claiming that you didn't/couldn't understand what they were actually after, you're probably terrible at reading people or being intellectually dishonest.

We don't understand each other at all, because you apparently have not gotten my point whatsoever.

I'm not letting my opponent flounder. I'm explaining ANYTHING he has a question about without reservation. I'm giving them cards with the exact rules that they ask about, letting them read them, and then answering questions.

If after all that they still don't understand it, then nothing I could have done would have changed that. If you read a rule, ask questions, get answers, and still become flummoxed...at what point do you give players credit for at least basic understandings of the game?

[bouncymischa]

One again, please explain how very politely handing a card to someone and answering all their questions is "punishing" them?

Hyperbole like that is why internet discussions generally devolve so badly and so fast. So because someone hands other players cards when asked about rules, explains them, and does all of this in a polite cheerful matter, he is apparently doomed to some friendless, bitter journey to the top, where he will have some sort of "It's a wonderful life" esque epiphany about the true value of friendship?

I have no idea how that correlation even remotely makes sense unless you completely misinterpret, misunderstand, and then take out of context generally everything that has been said, and even that it's one hell of a stretch, lol

Thinking about your response to my earlier post, I suspect part of it is that internet posts tend to take the context out of everything, and present them in a rather stark vacuum.

For example, how does handing someone a card come across as "punishing" someone? Thinking about it, I realized that in describing the act, you present it as being very impersonal, and even dehumanizing. After all, let's say I'm setting up for a game against someone who has never played against my warcaster before, and he asks me what my warcaster's feat is. I could choose to simply tell him what it does, verbatim, even reading the card to him. Or I could simply hand him the card, and continue on my way. The former is a social interaction, where I"m talking with my opponent and chatting with him. The second comes across as much more impersonal, and depending on the body language involved could even be seen as being dismissive -- "You're not worth my time to interact with. My current actions are more important than talking with you. Figure it out yourself, and stop bothering me." Now, of course that's fully dependent on body language and other social cues, but those don't transmit across an internet post. And if the reader has to fill in the context, what sort of impression are they supposed to fill it in with -- a Pollyanna-ish utopia of competitive play, where everyone is cheerful and friendly and gets along? Or a pragmatic reality where competitive players are out to win, and opponents are obstacles in the way?

Of course, the reality is somewhere in the middle, and ultimately all players really want the same sorts of things. They want a fun, friendly atmosphere between people, while at the same time people are doing their best. Of course, reality being what it is, people are always going to fall short of the ideal. I know in my own case, I only really get a Warmachine game in once every couple of months. When I attend a Steamroller event, I've likely not even had the chance to practice with my own lists, much less study what my opponents may be bringing. When I sit down to play against an opponent, I've only got a couple of minutes to try and digest the contents of a dozen cards, and have pretty much no chance of fathoming the possible combinations they may be bringing.

Even so, I'm aware of those limits and I'll take my lumps as they come. Last Steamroller I played against a Xerxis brick, and knew the basics of what made it up -- Shield Wall units with Defender's Ward on them with a Krea backing them up, and did my best accordingly, but even then I forgot about Martial Discipline which cost me a bit. Ah well.

But if I take the content of your earlier post, I end up with the conclusion that if I played against you and asked any questions, that it would indicate I'm nothing more than a lazy person who can't even be bothered to put any effort into the game, and ultimately am a waste of your time to play against. As you clarified later, you typically do carry yourself with a pleasant demeanor and are even understanding of the occasional question, and that it's someone who repetitively asks you things that irritates you. But your earlier post didn't imply any of this -- it was a rather stark invective with bold-faced font ranting about the horrors of laziness. What sort of conclusion was supposed to be drawn?

As you point out, there's a lot of hyperbole in internet posts. Part of it stems from the fact that people with moderate positions feel they have to become more extreme in order to get their point across, particularly if the argument is dragging on and people feel their point of view isn't getting through. In this thread, you have people on one side who demonize the others as being cold, callous, and trying to use every advantage to win a game, and on the other you have people who demonize the others as being lazy and shiftless, who want their victories to be spoon-fed to them. Neither is exactly accurate, nor fair.

In the end, I've basically come to the conclusions that a) no one should go into a game expecting to be told any more than basic information, but that b) there's more to admire in people who are willing to go the extra distance to provide any additional information to their opponents. :P

[PG_petegrrrr]

Yea but that smacks of your hoping he doesn't notice something and possibly trying to make him use more of the clock.


A much easier example


player 1. : "Whats that bronzebacks max threat range?

player 2. : "12.5 inches."


DONE.

And wrong.

Which is why I answered the way I did. What's his max threat range? Well, technically in that scenario it could be as high as 16 and a half inches. (abuse+Charge+7 beat backs

So in your rush for a simple answer, you gave him potentially very wrong information, where as my way he has all the info he needs.

The point is not to hide info. That's silly and against the spirit of the game.

The point is to give them all the info they need in case you get it wrong, or you did bad math, or forgot a buff, so you don't accidentally pull a gotcha, as you demonstrated perfectly.

[West996]

This, like many topics, is one that comes down to differences in basic personal values and those holding the opposing viewpoint will never be swayed by mere intellectual arguments on a forum.

I don't see other gamer's as "lazy" for not memorizing the nuances of thousands of different rule combinations, and I see no reason to punish them for not having this knowledge. I also don't think it is realistic or fun to expect my opponent to "learn" something like this is a stressful timed situation such as in the middle of tournament play. I would rather make it fun for both of us and tell him (occassionally her) what's up and allow them to make what they feel is the best decision. That decision may not work out well for them depending on how well they thought it through or how the dice turn out, but they will have the satisfaction of walking away from the table knowing they were able to give the best game they could rather than getting steamrolled by an unknown.

These people (other gamers) are my friends, even if I don't know this particular one personally. But maybe you're one of millions of people in this world that think you are "fiercely independent" and part of that mindset means leaving others in the dust when they can't take the heat. I hope these folks come to realize that tThe top" is a cold, lonely place when you don't bring others with you.

See I was with you here until you started making judgments about the personality type of those that don't share your view point.

Suffice to say in a competitive environment I will be polite, gracious, generous and helpful. But I will not hold your hand through the whole game. I will not warn you of potential pitfalls when you are making your moves. I am there to play my army, not yours.

That being said I'm a very friendly person and don't set out to leave my opponents in the dust, and I'm not some egocentric megalomaniac that is trying to make it to the top, leaving everyone else behind. That statement is judgmental bias, unfounded and just plain wrong.

I would rather let a player take a move back that he felt he could have made better if he had remembered a rule, then hold his hand through the whole game. It is not about having a 'win at all costs' attitude. I'm not even there to win, but I am there to have a competitive game. That is what makes it fun. My opponent and I are friends in the hobby together, but during the game we are trying to crush each other.

If you forget my Jack has pathfinder and place your caster wrong, I'd rather go back a whole turn and let you redo it if you think you can do it better. But I don't want to explain every nuance of the game to you as we play.

What would American Football be like if each team told the other what the next play was like?

What I think it comes down to is having a different view point on what competitive is. When you get to a tournament the time for teaching and learning is over. Now you learn by your mistakes. I practice and practice and practice to get ready for a tournament and when I get there I want to try and smash you and I want you to try and smash me. If you have a few insights and tips for me after you smash me I will take them gratefully. I don't want you thwarting your own assasination attempts by warning me where not to move my models.

I want to feel the same way you want to feel when I finish this game. Win or Loose I want to feel like I played it to my best. Not that I was hand held through it.

If I ask you how far your manhunter can charge and you tell me 9" and then I ask you if you can augment that in anyway and you hand my your caster card and I see boundless charge on there. I'll be proud of my discovery and play accordingly. If I look at your caster card and don't see it because I'm nervous and rushing and then you hit me with it. That's on me and I'll learn more from that then you telling me. "Don't forget about boundless charge."

The funny thing is that you think you are helping these players who from the sounds of it already came unprepared to a tournament by walking them through the game step by step instead of having them read the cards and you're not.

As you have discovered from this thread, not every player is going to do this. Not everyone even has the personality type to be a teacher. Not every player will pick up on the social queues of a 'floundering ' player.

Handing these players the cards and helping out with questions may be the best thing for them.

[ShockwaveIIC]

Player 1: "so Abuse is not an upkeep. You can cast it multiple times?"

Player 2: "Yes, I can put it on more than one beast if I have enough fury, but each takes damage. But same name effects don't stack, so I will only ever get 2 spd bonus on any given beast. Anything else?"

None of this needed to be said as it they have the cards in their hands, the second doesn't need to be said either as that is covered by the rules and should be known by the player.

[bouncymischa]

What I think it comes down to is having a different view point on what competitive is. When you get to a tournament the time for teaching and learning is over. Now you learn by your mistakes. I practice and practice and practice to get ready for a tournament and when I get there I want to try and smash you and I want you to try and smash me. If you have a few insights and tips for me after you smash me I will take them gratefully. I don't want you thwarting your own assasination attempts by warning me where not to move my models.

I want to feel the same way you want to feel when I finish this game. Win or Loose I want to feel like I played it to my best. Not that I was hand held through it.

I can't help but wonder how you'd feel playing against me, who only gets to play perhaps one day every two months, and often those are just Steamroller events, with lists I may have made up the week before and never even practiced with. X3

[infamousd]

A lot of people seem to just want you to explain what your exact plan is, and how your going to do it. I see no issue with explaining what I plan to do, however it will be during a time you have no choice in the matter (well usually, I do sometimes explain my plan a little too soon, and then they change what they are doing, knowing full well I would have won the game if I didn't reveal my plan). If you ask "whats the defense on those MoW" my answer will be " its X," and i'll insert "but it they get a plus or minus from spell/effect x". I will answer you how far stuff can charge and add in current factors (if they have spell X, benefit from ability Y, or have reach with weapon Z). Why should I run through all possible combinations that aren't in effect yet?

"well I wouldn't want to win because my opponent didn't know the possible combo" and "Well I want to win on skill". Hate to say it bub, recall is a skill. Your winning on your skill of knowing your opponents pieces and on thinking of what strategies they might come up and how you can counter them. Saying its cheating to not reveal your strategy or every possible combination is the worse kind of sportsmanship, being a sore loser. Everyone loses, not everyone wins. If you can't handle losing, can't smile at your opponent and say "well It was a good game, I'll learn to watch out for X, next time", then YOU are playing the wrong game. Yes it hurts, and we all are guilty of feeling a bit jaded when you lose. But honestly, unless the guy full out lied and said "I can only charge 7 inches" then proceed to kill your model 12 inches away because he meant his speed was seven, and he has reach, shrug it off, its a game.

To that effect, No tournament should ever include "sportsman-like" categories for top 3 placement for this very reason. None of us can seem to agree with each other on what it means to be sportingly. I've asked Mischa what his defence was and he said X, and gave me a look like i needed to ask more, but i ignored him and charged in, failing to kill his house guard because they have set defense. Was I mad at him? nope, he told them their defence, I didn't asked about charging or even mention charging. He also told me after the first guy charged, and let me just "Walk the rest into combat" seeing how my plan to get extra damage failed...



That said, not a beacon of sportsmanship... I often dance when my Sea Dog Crew makes a tough check, while singing, "Cant touch this".

[Unseen]

Imagine this compretely hypotheticial scenario:

You have a Nihilator on a hill next to a wall. Defender's Ward is on him and he is within 2" of a Kreas who used her animus.
You opponent has engaged the Nihilator with 2 models, one of which does so over a wall. You opponent has 4 spell casting models; two on the hill(one with a normal single target spell, the other with a spray) and two not on the hill(again one with a normal single target spell, the other with a spray). Your opponent has 6 models with ranged weapons; three on the hill(one with a spray) three not on the hill(again one with a spray), two of them(1 spray guy and none non-spray guy) are behind the Nihilator.

Your opponent asks for the Nihilator's DEF, what answer do you give?
Arguably any answer from 13-25 has an argument for correctness. Giving the base DEF might make your opponent think you were witholding info when one model or another tries to attack and, possibly, needs a wildly different roll.

[hausdorff space]

... and this is how threads end up in well divided "rage".


What I find most interesting is how the "how far can that charge" evolves to a question about max threat ranges and all possible buffs. And the issue becomes one of full disclosure versus immediately handing cards over.

This is all just silly lines in the sand.

In my previous example:

• Player B said a model could charge X far.
• Player B then charged the model X+2 far.

The two bullet points don't match up.
If Player B had said he can currently charge X, then fine; but as it stands his actions invalidate his answer.
Unless people want the game to devolve into semantics.

I don't think there's any requirement to fully detail your strategy and what you can or plan to do; but there is an element of honesty required, if your opponent asks you an wishy-washy question respond with a firm answer, you don't need to go into thorough details; but you don't need to resort to immediately handing over your cards either.

Note the rules on this aren't all that specific - they mention information twice, seemingly in reference to two different things.

[Xarian]

Imagine this compretely hypotheticial scenario:

You have a Nihilator on a hill next to a wall. Defender's Ward is on him and he is within 2" of a Kreas who used her animus.
You opponent has engaged the Nihilator with 2 models, one of which does so over a wall. You opponent has 4 spell casting models; two on the hill(one with a normal single target spell, the other with a spray) and two not on the hill(again one with a normal single target spell, the other with a spray). Your opponent has 6 models with ranged weapons; three on the hill(one with a spray) three not on the hill(again one with a spray), two of them(1 spray guy and none non-spray guy) are behind the Nihilator.

Your opponent asks for the Nihilator's DEF, what answer do you give?
Arguably any answer from 13-25 has an argument for correctness. Giving the base DEF might make your opponent think you were witholding info when one model or another tries to attack and, possibly, needs a wildly different roll.

In this situation you would give the base DEF and any modifiers currently on the model (DEF/ARM vs ranged, whatever). Your opponent can figure out the effects of hills, back strikes, etc on his own.