What do you consider gamey?

[Curu Olannon]

No worries, some good examples there casazzo the one about mischarging is new. I have done this several times but often it is not intentional. I think this is a little har to abuse as You set it up before your opponent moves. What do you feel about charging corner to corner or going lesser than 5 wide without congalining?

[Rabidnid]

A VC asking to play at 1600 points rather than 1500 points so he can include a 400 point vampire.

Running a BotWD in the 1600 point list to screw over above vampire.

[Ferny]

While the OP may be which moves are considered gamey, to consider why some moves are considered gamey and others aren't, where the boundary is drawn, and whether it varies etc I think it is useful to consider *why* it is considered gamey.

For example - I think these things are on a spectrum - some 'gamey' moved can be achieved by accident (e.g. the champion reaver trick - if your reavers started the phase in a column for legitimate non-chargey reasons.

And I think character placement is also on a spectrum, with ogres and maybe bretts in the 'most legit' camp, going through our white lion cubes (and maybe sea helm reforms, though we don't see it much), through (perhaps?) crown of command fewer than 5 wide units down to congas with or without characters on the front, depending on who's being saved. I think given that the rules fail to be explicit, and the question interestignly morphs into 'what do you consider to be an abuse of the rules', the OP gives interesting case studies to illustrate the latter.

Of course - it's your OP so you can feel free to direct the flow in whatever way interests you.

[Curu Olannon]

Greetings,

I haven't read all the posts in this topic but I read enough to find it peculiar how far players want to go to achieve a victory. I must say I am not really surprised, it's just a pity people so readily resort to tricks, believing it is what makes a difference in the game. Or even consider them a sign of good generalship.

First of all, you have to define what you mean by tricks. Second of all, why do you pity people who resort to this unconditionally? If everyone`s doing it, is it not fair game? If not, why not? How can you imply that it makes no difference in a game? If these tricks would not have an impact on the game then truly we would not be discussing them in the first place. The possible options you have multiply several times if you consider all the examples discussed thus far in this thread, how can you imply that mastering this is not a sign of good generalship? Some serious logical inconsistencies here that you need to clear up if you want your argument to hold any value.

The definition of "gamey" varies and everybody draws the line (if at all) in different place. I was thinking how to describe how I treat them the best and this time I decided the analogy may be a better solution.

It would be easier to discuss specifics if you could point to cases you consider gamey. An analogy is fine, however...

Consider diving in the penalty area in football. It is not against the rules really, you may see a yellow card if you do it badly. But if you do it right you can score. In a tight game it may indeed be the difference between winning or losing. The thing is that to dive well you need acting skills, not good technique or any other skill that makes you a good player.

A player is cautioned and shown the yellow card if he commits any of the following seven offences:

is guilty of unsporting behaviour...

So clearly, diving is against the rules. Furthermore, while diving has nothing to do with playing football, many of the tricks described here most definitely requires you to understand Warhammer and use them to your advantage. Not only is your analogy wrong, as shown from the rules above, it is also invalid based on the very different contexts.

The same with these gamey tricks. They are easy to learn, you just need to see them done once. But they are not tactics. They depend on the rules interpretation, not superior play.

Rules interpretation? Really? Please comment on the tricks you really consider to be "interpreting the rules". The way I see it, the rules are very clear, otherwise it would be a foul. What you may think the spirit of the rules are matters not, if the rules are clear there`s no room for interpretation. Interpretation would mean FAQ stuff like how does Spirit Leech and Inspiring Presence work. These things have nothing to do with the tricks discussed in this thread. Furthermore, easy to learn? Same goes for anything in Warhammer You need to see it done once. MSU is easy to learn.

That's why I don't use them. I don't claim higher moral ground because of that, I really don't care. I simply think that the true skill lies in superior deployment so that you in a better starting position and can seize the initiative. I think the true skill is in the movement phase where you bring the shooters to positions where they can maximize the damage done at range. Or to position units in such manner that the impact of dice rolls does not prevent you from winning combats. The true skill lies in planning the right order of spell casting so that no matter how many power dice you have and how fickle the magic phase is, the spell or spells cast tip the balance a little bit more to your favor where and when you need it the most.

You just did. The starting part of your post implies an arrogance and attitude towards tricks that cannot be interpretated any other way than claiming moral high ground. As for what you define true skill to be, this statement is biased at best, incoherent at worst. Warhammer is about movement and using troops together. Tricks are things you can do to further enhance this. It´s exactly the same type of skills, just a different application from your usual moving units around. Besides, all the examples you quote above can be termed just as easy as employing tricks.

I can't become better player because of tricks. I can't learn from the opponent much if he brings these as his main tactical weapon. I learned from great players who had superior deployment, most efficient movement, focused shooting and combat phases they planned for.

Positively wrong. Having a tool at your disposal which you refuse to use is inherently piutting you in a weaker position. Thus, employing tricks will make you a better player. I employ tricks to get superior deployment, most efficient movement, focused shooting and combat phases. How is this different?

The fact that a player may actively seek situations where such tricks can be employed is a good indication of his mentality, however. It shows winning at all cost approach and the fact that he plays the rules not the game (another subtle distinction that makes a great difference, if you able to see it). And as with diving, it also kills the beauty of the game because it is just one step away from cheating.

The nature of a competitive game is to win. If you refuse to use the means at your disposal to do so, be me guest, but there is no evidence that it is just one step away from cheating. In fact the more competitive an opponent is, the less likely I am to consider him cheating. Most people who play to win have this mindset where there`s a strict boundary between what you can do and what you simply cannot do. True, money makes a big difference here and we see huge scandals in lots of sports, but this, luckily, is not a problem for Warhammer.

Just my opinion of course.

A catch-all disclaimer at the end does not allow spiteful, arrogant prods to stand unchallenged.

Back to my original point, I would like to discuss specific cases here and hear where people draw the line. Talking about Warhammer in soft environments and how the gamey ones of us are ruining the game and are only one step away from cheating is just provoking, and you know it.

[HERO]

A catch-all disclaimer at the end does not allow spiteful, arrogant prods to stand unchallenged.

[Casazzo]

What do you feel about charging corner to corner or going lesser than 5 wide without congalining?

Both very good examples of imho good generalship without being a bad sportsman.

What do you feel about charging corner to corner

You mean with single models, to creat favourable overruns? I do not think of this as despicable. It is well within the boundaries of "use your brain while moving/charging".

or going lesser than 5 wide without congalining?

I do not cross the line of less than 3 Models. I frequently use 3x2 or 3x3 silverhelm-cubes and sometimes a lone 3x3+1 white lion-cube. It has never raised an eyebrow of any of my opponents, nor would it raise mine if used against me. You even loose the +1 rank bonus, so it is a fair trade.


----
As we can see, there are very different oppinions about what is considered gamey, Not only do individual people have different oppinions, but even whole groups of players ("social or geographical metagame") may have different boundaries.
It hurts my need for harmony, if you guys fight about things like this. The problem is NOT you ... the problem ist just the lazy rule design of the current warhammer designers.
If you take a look at the current ruleset of Kings of War you will be astonished, how easy a movement phase without hassle can be designed.

I repeat: The problem ist not players fighting about rules, but game designers being lazy with the ruledesign firsthand and with not publishing apropriate answers to faqs.

[Prince of Spires]

It hurts my need for harmony, if you guys fight about things like this. The problem is NOT you ... the problem ist just the lazy rule design of the current warhammer designers.
If you take a look at the current ruleset of Kings of War you will be astonished, how easy a movement phase without hassle can be designed.

A quick glance at the kings of war rules shows that it is also a much simpler game. Less options means fewer things that are unclear and fewer rules that can work together in strange ways.

For instance, no reforms and no wheeling but only pivoting makes the movement phase a whole lot simpler. It must be said of course that both movement phase rule sets are about 2 pages in length. So actually not that different...

Same with the charge rules. A charge rule that basically says, "pick up your unit and put it centered against the other unit" is different from "you get one wheel and need to close the door".

Simpler rules means less room for unclear rules, but also less tactical complexity and a simpler game.

Rod

[Grenic]

Curu, what do I consider gamey, well to begin with I really don’t consider most of the examples initially presented as gamey. However, I’m still not sure how you reform from a challenge to get what sounds like less models in combat would work. An example would help here.

A few things that are gamey to me are:
- A player that in the early turns tends to request/take leniency when applying the rules when it comes to their own actions (measuring ranges for shooting, movement, 1” separation, etc) and then later looks to follow rules to the letter for your actions;
- A player, who fully knows the rules, conveniently forgets them, and then plays quickly so you miss that the rule was not followed;
- Players that place chariots, monsters, dragons, fast cavalry, etc (e.g. models/units with longer flanks than width and can freely pivot) perpendicular to their intended direction of movement to gain 1” or so of distance;
- Players that strictly enforce True Line of Sight approach for all of your shooting and then are "more lenient" on targeting for theirs
- Players that grab the "hits" and leave the "misses" *
- Players that do not re-roll the same dice used to establish a hit *

While I could go on, but from the examples above, my view of “gamey” is really related to player conduct and how consistent they are in applying rules.

* these tend to slow the game down, I see these actions as "stealthy slow play", which is gamey

[Giladis]

A bit late to the discussion but here are my thoughts.

I would consider all the examples in the OP as gamey since to me they break what someone earlier in the topic called "suspension of disbelief". Also my ideas closely match what Swordmaster of Hoeth wrote.

This conversation comes quite often with one of my closest associates in organising and refereing tournaments in Croatia. Some of you might know him from the ETC (Vedran Žuanić Croatia's captain - Razon on TWF) or from Lorenzo (or however that is called these days). He plays what rules allow him while I play what I consider the game represents.

I don't judge people for playing as the rules allowed them to but over the years our community apart from the odd person have managed to purge (maybe a too strong a word) or convert the players with such an attitude. So our scene is thanfully void of most of such things. That doesn't mean we are not aware of them we just agree not to use them.


SpellArcher @ wow 2400

I used to play as a kid but realised Warhammer was much closer to what I was looking for so these days I only play chees to pass time while on a dig with no net access

[SpellArcher]

Thanks Giladis (and Curu).

You wouldn't believe the amount of chess I played as a kid. Always loved Warhammer more though, maybe that's what held me back!

[HERO]

A quick glance at the kings of war rules shows that it is also a much simpler game. Less options means fewer things that are unclear and fewer rules that can work together in strange ways.

For instance, no reforms and no wheeling but only pivoting makes the movement phase a whole lot simpler. It must be said of course that both movement phase rule sets are about 2 pages in length. So actually not that different...

Same with the charge rules. A charge rule that basically says, "pick up your unit and put it centered against the other unit" is different from "you get one wheel and need to close the door".

Simpler rules means less room for unclear rules, but also less tactical complexity and a simpler game.

Rod

I wouldn't be surprised if the movement rules change completely in 9th to match up with that of Kings of War. You really do lose nothing in terms of tactical gameplay and it's just so much simpler. Keep in mind that the person who wrote the rules for Kings of War is Alessio Cavatore. The same guy who worked at GW as Lead Rules Designer.

Simpler rules does not mean less tactical complexity and a simpler game, that's just not untrue. If you implement Kings of War movement into WHFB right now, how much tactical advantage will you lose? There will be no loss in strategy, all that you will gain is less ambiguous rules.

@Rod, what's up with the name man?

[Mist]

A few things that are gamey to me are:
- A player that in the early turns tends to request/take leniency when applying the rules when it comes to their own actions (measuring ranges for shooting, movement, 1” separation, etc) and then later looks to follow rules to the letter for your actions;
- A player, who fully knows the rules, conveniently forgets them, and then plays quickly so you miss that the rule was not followed;
- Players that place chariots, monsters, dragons, fast cavalry, etc (e.g. models/units with longer flanks than width and can freely pivot) perpendicular to their intended direction of movement to gain 1” or so of distance;
- Players that strictly enforce True Line of Sight approach for all of your shooting and then are "more lenient" on targeting for theirs
- Players that grab the "hits" and leave the "misses" *
- Players that do not re-roll the same dice used to establish a hit *

While I could go on, but from the examples above, my view of “gamey” is really related to player conduct and how consistent they are in applying rules.

* these tend to slow the game down, I see these actions as "stealthy slow play", which is gamey

+1
If things are border line I will rule against myself, eg the measurement is within a mm of being say 10" or 11" for a charge then I will say it is a 11" chagre (to close to call one way or the other), I would also expect my opp to do the same.
The turning of the base to get extra movement is one I see from time to time.

[Lord Anathir]

My List:
-whatever the rule pack says is gamey.

Cheating is cheating and playing by the rules is just good play. Almost all "gamey" things have a drawback. IE congas will never win combat and just about any maneuver requires a unit, which costs points.

Free your minds.

[Jedra]

I guess i differ from most on this in what I think being gamey entails.

Grenic's list isn't what I consider gamey. Rather, it's a list of things which range from bad sportsmanship to down right cheating (with the difference between these mostly being down to the extent of use and intent of the player).

Things like placing eagles, conga lines etc I consider gamey, in the sense that they are aspects that very much relate to a game mechanic rather than a simulation of a real battle. Having said that, I would put closing the gap into this definition as well. And the whole way we do deployment. And a number of other things that no one would even question. The difference to me is that I don't consider calling it gamey to really be a bad thing, or something to be avoided. Warhammer is, like most games, both a strategy game in it's own right and a simulation of something. It's strength comes from doing both quite well, but there is always a play off between how well you simulate and how a game actually works in practice. Calling a part gamey is just pointing to the parts that really come from the fact that it's a game with rules, and that it kind of breaks the simulation part. But that's ok.

At the end of the day though, the important thing to note is that it IS a game. If you or your opponent have a problem with certain things and you play regularly, talk about it. With the old book lots of people I know hated the Book of Hoeth, so I did without (actually, so did I so it wasn't a great loss...) If it's a new opponent, if a particular rule bugs you, raise it before hand. If they don't agree to go without, then decide whether it bugs you enough to even bother playing with them.

When playing it's important that you're both having fun in the game, and part of that is to come to an agreement as to how you'll play. That's why Grenic's examples would really piss me off, because they are inherently someone trying to bend the rules to their favour without giving any slack. I have played friendly games where we have both been fairly loose with the precision of our movement - especially in the early turns of the game. But if someone asked for lenience and then didn't give it to me, I would never play with that person again. Or certainly never give them any lenience in future if I had to play them for whatever reason.


PS Curu et al

If you ever pulled those tactics against me and I wasn't expecting them, the reaction would be hat's off to you, and then I'd make a little note to check the rules in details so that I can use it the next time. So not everyone is anti these things.

[Curu Olannon]

@Jedra - That`s an interesting take on it. Perhaps gamey has an unjustified, negative feel to it? I think the following is interesting:

Things like placing eagles, conga lines etc I consider gamey, in the sense that they are aspects that very much relate to a game mechanic rather than a simulation of a real battle.

This, I agree with 100%. The problem is that all of Warhammer is like this. Just like Call of Duty is meant to be a high-paced shooter that by design is unrealistic, Warhammer is about creating a miniature fantasy game with rules allowing for epic moments. If GW wanted to they could easily make the game more realistic, but Warhammer has never been designed as such. Regardless of the employment of gamey tricks or whatever the game at its core does not have the necessary mechanics to be realistic. As such, while one might argue that what you examplify above moves the game even further away from realism, I don`t think it`s necessarily against the spirit of the rules. Games workshop has shocked me so many times with FAQs and Erratas that I`ve given up trying to understand their vision for Warhammer (I doubt they even have one to be honest). Now, I rather just stick to the rules as they are, trying to impose as little interpretation as possible (largely like a lawyer would approach it if it were a set of laws).

[Jedra]

Yeah, it's not realistic vs unrealistic, but a game vs an epic fantasy battle. Prince of Spire said it well with:

And, for many people more importantly, it is about immersion. Being drawn into a fantasy battle. Fighting a battle or a war with your legions against those vile [insert enemy of choice]... In fiction writing, there is a term "suspension of disbelieve". Everyone know a book or a fantasy battle is not real. However, for a while when playing, we can pretend it is real and live the battle.

Your Call of Duty analogy is apt - especially the more recent ones, they REALLY try to immerse you in the game, even though it is "unrealistic" in the sense that no solider would ever go through or do what you do.

And with this it really comes down to why you play which will draw you to one side or the other on the "gamey" thing and whether it's bad. Do you play to pretend you're a general at the head of a massive fantasy army (and the "epic" situations the game-rules are designed to bring about promote this immersion) or play for a head-to-head battle of wits in a strategy game against your opponent? It's of course not an either/or - I'd be surprised if there was anyone who played Warhammer that wasn't some mix of the two, but then likewise everyone will lean more one way than another. But some people really emphasize the first over the later. I think (and apologies if I'm putting words into people's mouths here) that the "against the spirit of the rules" argument so often used against these kinds of tactics really comes from "I don't see what that represents on a real battlefield" and so violates the suspension of disbelief.

However, like you I am constantly puzzled by GWs rules decisions. You're right I think that there is no particular vision, just a set of point decisions and revisions that they make because... who knows why. That's why for me there are two sets of rules - the rulebook, and anything you agree with your opponent. That's it. "the spirit of the rules" should be ignored unless you have explicitly agreed what that spirit is before hand. It's a lot harder to do this in a tournament I imagine (not really a tournament player myself), but when playing with people you are friends I think it is a lot easier.

[Swordmaster of Hoeth]

I haven't checked this topic since I have posted for the last time. I consider all mentioned examples in the original post gamey to a degree but I also think the context i.e. why I think they are gamey is important. I don't expect anybody to agree with me, it is my own preference to play the game this way, with its all real or perceived disadvantages.

I also repeat, that I accept people use anything to win games.

@ Mist

I admit I was concerned by that analogy. It looks similar to me but I agree it actually added more confusion and was not a good example to illustrate why I think certain moves are gamey.

I am totally ok with your approach (and many others who share it) that there is no such a thing as gamey at all. I think, however, that if a person perceives some moves as gamy next question would be why. Hence my post, which should have been started with statement what I consider gamey.

@ Curu

Before I address what you have written in reply to my post I would like to remind you about PM I sent to you on 30th May 2014:

Hi,

I must admit I am not happy with the exchange we have and I don't think it serves any good to anyone. I'd rather spend the time on discussions than on arguing and potential flame wars.

I know that my posts didn't help to make things better. I would like to come up with the solution so that we can co-exist in the forum. Maybe there is a way to understand each other better. I would like to know what in particular made me your "mortal enemy" as Rod put it, so that I can try to amend my behavior in the future.

SM

Your reply was:

First of all, I really don`t have anything against you. The problem in our exchanges is that we have fundamentally different views as to what is sound advice for other players. I would rather have people play stronger lists, whereas you would rather have people play with whatever they like and do their best to make it work. Of course this is too stereotypical but I`m sure you understand what I mean.

Your authoritarian statements such as:

You just did. The starting part of your post implies an arrogance and attitude towards tricks that cannot be interpretated any other way than claiming moral high ground.

or

A catch-all disclaimer at the end does not allow spiteful, arrogant prods to stand unchallenged.

show that it is not true at all and that you do have serious issues. You obviously know better what I wanted to say and what are my real intentions so I guess there is no point for me to discuss things with you, apart from one more thing:

You need to see it done once. MSU is easy to learn.

But of course! Why do you think I play that style? I am surprised it took you 3 years to learn that.

What I have learned about real hardcore players, who use the approach "if it is not forbidden it is allowed", is that they really don't care what others think about the way they play the game. What they are interested is honing their skills to perfection, including anything they can use to gain an advantage. They don't waste time to convince anybody. The situation is simple, the opposing player either uses the same tricks (among others) or not. What really matters is winning the game. And the only thing worthy spending energy on is how to make themselves better at it. They don't need to go vocal about how good they are, they simply win tournaments.

[Curu Olannon]

I don`t understand what you mean by the first part of your reply at all, to be honest. Seeing as you didn`t address any of my issues nor questions, I suppose it doesn`t matter though. Instead I´ll address the issues you raised:

You need to see it done once. MSU is easy to learn.

But of course! Why do you think I play that style?

Because you tried other builds and they didn`t work for you. It`s easier to start something new because you know it`s inherently hard to make it work than admitting to one self that one does not understand how a strong build works. Eventually, concepts are understood and one improves. I suppose this, combined with a soft meta, is why I think you play MSU. Would you honestly play the same list if you consistently lost 5 or worse in a 20-0 system for dozens of games in a row? Seeing as you market yourself as an "outcast", perhaps? Who knows though, as you haven`t experienced this it`s anyone`s guess, really. I know for a fact that I wouldn`t and most others I know wouldn`t either.

What I have learned about real hardcore players, who use the approach "if it is not forbidden it is allowed", is that they really don't care what others think about the way they play the game. What they are interested is honing their skills to perfection, including anything they can use to gain an advantage. They don't waste time to convince anybody. The situation is simple, the opposing player either uses the same tricks (among others) or not. What really matters is winning the game. And the only thing worthy spending energy on is how to make themselves better at it. They don't need to go vocal about how good they are, they simply win tournaments.

As a stereotype, I think this is about right. We could probably argue about what "real hardcore players" constitute, but I see your point. As has been discussed previously though, this is largely a social contract and as such, players should be open to discussing codes of conduct prior to a game, unless they are implicitly understood. What I do believe however is that, seeing as all the examples I provided are legal, the initiative for such a discussion should come from the one wanting to restrict the "available tricks". If I had a player come to me and say "I really dislike congalines, eagle blocking, double-flees and combat reform shenanigans" I would be a lot more likely to have a constructive discussion about how we should play the game and thus we`d be more likely to have a good game, enjoyed by both parties.

[Kes-Elrin]

5. Rolling something important, but not clearly describing what the roll was for. The big one? After getting a Dimensional Cascade an opponent will say "For the Wizard" and roll. That doesn't tell me if it's his 4+ to live, or the Strength 10 hit. I hate that situation. And it's amazing how many times if a 4+ is rolled, it's the roll to live.

That is definitely out of order. In a case like this, the normal procedure is to roll To Wound first, then roll the ward save. If the opponent wants to roll the ward save first in order to save time, he should clearly indicate that he is doing so before he rolls the dice.

[finreir]

5. Rolling something important, but not clearly describing what the roll was for. The big one? After getting a Dimensional Cascade an opponent will say "For the Wizard" and roll. That doesn't tell me if it's his 4+ to live, or the Strength 10 hit. I hate that situation. And it's amazing how many times if a 4+ is rolled, it's the roll to live.

That is definitely out of order. In a case like this, the normal procedure is to roll To Wound first, then roll the ward save. If the opponent wants to roll the ward save first in order to save time, he should clearly indicate that he is doing so before he rolls the dice.

I call it down the hole roll so it's clear, I always do it first anyway, it just saves rolls and my nerves. But if someone is not clear or I'm playing someone I think may try and twist it I do the correct order.

[mcmulligan]

The only thing I personally find "gamey" is actual cheating. Which I've come across in tournaments, although thankfully it happens very rarely. And I include "mysterious" dice rolling as cheating.

Conga lines, etc, are legitimate formations, and have their own weaknesses. I.e. ENORMOUS flanks to exploit. To those that find conga lines gamey, would you find a unit 1 rank deep but spanning 50 models wide gamey? Or does the inherit weakness of that formation render it not gamey? I think I agree with others that have said there comes a point where it's pretty arbitrary line drawing.

I'm actually kind of shocked at the list of tactics that have been listed here. Double fleeing? Really? That usually takes quite a bit of skill in the movement phase to set up properly and not just have your units charged by multiple units and run right out of the battlefield.

[Kes-Elrin]

5. Rolling something important, but not clearly describing what the roll was for. The big one? After getting a Dimensional Cascade an opponent will say "For the Wizard" and roll. That doesn't tell me if it's his 4+ to live, or the Strength 10 hit. I hate that situation. And it's amazing how many times if a 4+ is rolled, it's the roll to live.

That is definitely out of order. In a case like this, the normal procedure is to roll To Wound first, then roll the ward save. If the opponent wants to roll the ward save first in order to save time, he should clearly indicate that he is doing so before he rolls the dice.

I call it down the hole roll so it's clear, I always do it first anyway, it just saves rolls and my nerves. But if someone is not clear or I'm playing someone I think may try and twist it I do the correct order.

Yes. I can understand wanting to get that one out of the way (as long as you call it first, like you said).