What do you consider gamey?

[SpellArcher]

As said, tournament communities vary.

[Curu Olannon]

If somebody charged and then put their model at corners for a hopeful favorable overrun I would be equally appalled that they feel the need to use such a liberal interpretation to play the game.

Excellent example. Liberal interpretation being the key word. Where in the rules is it implied that aligning models center to center is more correct and thus less of a liberal interpretation than going corner-vs-corner?

As for your 40k example I don`t play enough of that system these days to know the context, but I do know this: At my second-to-last tournament I drew Daemons for game 2 I believe it was. His first comments upon seeing my army: "Gay Elves? Banner of the f****ngs World Dragon!?". This was my most enjoyable game of the tournament. I can empathise with his feelings (well not really since he`s playing DoC in the first place), just as I would feel Dwarfs would be a terrible draw (depending on the map, of course). I try to do my best to have an enjoyable game, every game. I frequently laugh, have a good time, shake my head when dice go against me but I don`t let it affect the mood of the game. As you can clearly see in my reports I also have a beer now and then, despite playing in a tournament game. I have never been called out on any moves I make with a few exceptions (and this always happens when that move just so happens to catch someone off guard and give me a huge opportunity) and I use these tricks in virtually every game: I angle units to get perfect WM overruns, I almost never center my Dragon when charging, I congaline in more games than I do not, I combat reform to create, deny and dodge situations and I have played against dozens of players across all skill ranges.

And if they don't NEED to use these 'tricks' to win, why use them?

I hope you can agree that the more tricks you can use, the greater your options are and therefore your chances of scoring points. In a situation where the points matter most then, it`s only logical to use the tools at your disposal. True, you could agree with your opponent beforehand but this should be explicit and I feel the initiative for this should be on the player who`s not a fan of such tricks as they are all perfectly legal.

Sportsmanship: is an aspiration or ethos that a sport or activity will be enjoyed for its own sake, with proper consideration for fairness, ethics, respect, and a sense of fellowship with one's competitors.

That`s a good definition I whole heartedly agree with. I still rest my case though as I don`t see how that`s opposing your definition in any way, shape or form. See my argument in the last post: playing by the rules does not violate any of these (unless explicitly agreed otherwise at the start of the game) whereas deliberately delaying an opponent or performing that reform to gain you an extra inch or two does do so.

And that outlook is what appalls me about the tournament community, that we have come to that.

I want to beat people at Warhammer because I bring a better game than they do. Thus, if they don`t bring their best I feel the game is less interesting. Likewise I don`t care for smashing beginners during friendlies and I usually avoid these games if I can, preferring opponents of a higher skill level. Everyone enjoys Warhammer for their own reasons and these reasons vary a lot. I enjoy lots of aspects, ranging from background to modelling, but first and foremost playing it to win. If you have a different perspective I suggest you do the following: Enter a tournament. You`ll enjoy it. Before each game, take 5 minutes to explain your position to your opponent. Try and be open, polite and forthcoming and ask if you can agree on a set of ground rules for how the game is to be played. Most of all, communicate. I can promise you that I had faced such a player and gotten such a request I would be more than happy to restrict the tricks available: as long as we both play the same game it`s fine by me

[Mist]

What you call tricks is what others call rules, if you charge in with your Star dragon with prince with star lance on its own, and get challenged by a unit champion, kill him and have the unit hold on steadfast with BsB rerolls, and then counter charged next turn is this gamey or just good/bad play? You have just lost a 700 pt unit and they have lost a unit champion. Knowing the rules and how to play them is not gamey, this is a game, the aim is A. to have fun, B. to win. If you can do both then this is a good game for you, if not then don't play unless the fun factor outweighs the win factor. When playing a game you do everything within the rules to win, if the rules allow you hit the opponent then you hit him, if they do not then you do not. There is no question of sportsmanship if the rules have been followed.

[SpellArcher]

The problem is that in many tournament communities, these things are implicit. You could come to a British tournament and play your way Curu but you'd probably get put in the same boat as someone like Ben Curry. He's a great guy and widely liked but is seen as something of a pantomime villain at the table. Ie he's known for using those kind of moves (while sticking strictly to the rules) more than other top players and people's natural reaction is to go 'boo'!

Where I disagre with you Mist is that Warhammer is not chess, it's based on a social contract. If I went to a foreign tournament for instance, I would try to fit in with the ethos there, instead of expecting the conventions used to be just like back home.

For example Curu, would you use the moves on the ETC's bad play list?

[Ferny]

The problem is that in many tournament communities, these things are implicit. You could come to a British tournament and play your way Curu but you'd probably get put in the same boat as someone like Ben Curry. He's a great guy and widely liked but is seen as something of a pantomime villain at the table. Ie he's known for using those kind of moves (while sticking strictly to the rules) more than other top players and people's natural reaction is to go 'boo'!

Now that's worth knowing. That probably explains why I've seen such a negative reaction to gameyness on the local areas facebook page. I'd kinda assumed that the tournament scene generally would at worst accept and and at best approve of 'gameyness', taking a similar approach to Curu. But if the British 'gameyness meta' is set to 'booo!' then that's well worth knowing! I still wish it were made explicit though, rather than docking sports points. If its to be discouraged, just ban it in comp packs/house rules, then we're all playing the same game with the same handicaps. Its frustrating for someone like me who plays in a small club and logs more warhammer hours on ulthuan than IRL to find out that the tournament scene which I'm slowly starting to move into has 'unwritten rules of gameyness'. I pretty much assumed that tourament play was like ETC play I guess, which is where I see these things used the most online perhaps?

[Prince of Spires]

I think this is a good place to reference the "proxy" topic which is running in the warhammer general forum at the moment. The reason why many people have issues with gamey play has nothing to do with winning or losing. While a game of WH is ultimately a game where someone wins and loses, it is also about social interaction, having a challenge etc. This is probably one of the reasons Curu prefers playing higher level opponents. They give a bigger challenge.

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]. This is why the proxy discussion gives such heated reactions. Running something that doesn't look like the real unit, resembles a toy or is an empty base destroys immersion. 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. Proxies destroy suspension of disbelieve. Every time you look at the empty base you are reminded that this is just a game with plastic models.

This is why, ultimately, many people dislike gamey play. A congaline is a good example. In no real battle would you see a unit in single file storming at you. And, even worse, in a real battle, having a unit champion at the front wouldn't make a difference. After all, if he dies, the rest of the unit would just strike at the rest of the unit, easily winning the fight they are now loosing. So, since a congaline has no place on a 'real' battlefield, people dislike seeing them on a fake one.

If somebody charged and then put their model at corners for a hopeful favorable overrun I would be equally appalled that they feel the need to use such a liberal interpretation to play the game.

Excellent example. Liberal interpretation being the key word. Where in the rules is it implied that aligning models center to center is more correct and thus less of a liberal interpretation than going corner-vs-corner?

It is actually implied in every single picture in the BRB where 2 units are in combat with each other. They all seem to aim at models aligning as nicely as possible. That of course doesn't make it a rule but it does explain why beginning players all align as nicely as possible.

Rod

[SpellArcher]

The thing is Ferny, there's quite a jokey atmosphere around the big tournaments in the UK so guys are more likely to make fun of 'gamey' play than take offence. At a smaller event in a GW store say, I wouldn't know.

[Ferny]

The thing is Ferny, there's quite a jokey atmosphere around the big tournaments in the UK so guys are more likely to make fun of 'gamey' play than take offence. At a smaller event in a GW store say, I wouldn't know.

Yeah, you've introduced a new concept to me which I think of as 'gameyness-meta', and I think I've misjudged the local tourney circuit in much the same way I think Curu would have done. A possible consequence of exposure to ETC batreps maybe? I'd still like to learn the tricks, be aware of the tricks, and have the nouse to deploy them in appropriate 'gameyness-metas', but I think this thread has actually tought me to be more aware of the 'gameyness-mata' and where possible to try to define it before a tourney/match.

[Curu Olannon]

Are there lots of ETC reports around? If anything I would think the ETC featured less such plays (apart from stubborn+congaline moves) as it is very defensive in nature and without engagements, you won`t see tricks If you`re referring to my BRs primarily I play this way regardless of comp (of course, unless comp is restricting this)

@SA - I haven`t actually looked too closely at the worst play document. I find that playing High Elves, such situations rarely arise. As such I can`t say how it would impact the game. In a non-ETC game I won`t hesitate to railroad though, nor do I expect people to avoid doing so against me.

One thing I do consider gamey though is targeting invisible targets with cannons. I`ve heard this is common in the UK. I had a clubmate who went to an SCGT one year I believe it was, where he had a Prince on a dragon. The Dragon went down and the prince was behind a hill. An opposing cannon thus targeted the top of the hill (incidentally 10" from the back of the Prince...). This you would never get away with here. I suppose you could argue this is just the same as e.g. congalining, but that`s a line that I`ve never experienced anyone crossing and was quite surprised to learn was fairly common (according to my club mate anyway) in the UK.

@Rod - true, if you consider the photos there is an implication there. In practice though a unit hardly ever lines up 100% to another.

Anyway I think I`m in the same boat as Ferny: If I go to an unknown environment I`ll be looking to gauge the gameymeta prior to playing. Again, as long as everyone`s on the same page I`m all good.

[Teledor]

Curu,

Perhaps I misunderstood the skewing of bases to deny a potential charge or whatever potentially gamey tactic was referred to in that point. I guess from the description I assumed the gamey tactic was skewing the positioning of units that had identical base sizes, i.e. chariot base to chariot base or cav base to cav base etc. If they're differing sizes, say single cav base character on single chariot, then I would not expect them to line up perfectly and skewing to one side or the other isn't bad at all, there isn't much you can do about bases having differing sizes.

It has to line up somehow and it's the charging player's decision how to line it up. However, say a single chariot base model charges a single chariot base model in the front, then they really should line up perfectly and doing so otherwise or caddy cornering them would be outside the intent pretty clearly illustrated in the BRB as point out by Rod.

[Curu Olannon]

There are many, many ways to skew the bases. What you are all arguing for brings an interesting question to my mind: What if you have a chariot-based model with supporting infantry behind it on the flank and you want to charge it with a cav-sized model? If you align perfectly on center here the supporting unit cannot charge as it`ll have said cav-sized model in its front arc, which is blocked by the combat. If not, why not?

I play single models a lot. When I run the Dragon there are typically 2 models, the Dragon and the Frostheart, that can benefit greatly from proper alignment. It can change anything from potenial counter-charges to where they overrun. If this means placing it corner-to-corner so that virtually no points from my base touches the other base (save for said corner) I`ll happily do so.

[Mist]

Where I disagre with you Mist is that Warhammer is not chess, it's based on a social contract. If I went to a foreign tournament for instance, I would try to fit in with the ethos there, instead of expecting the conventions used to be just like back home.

I agree with you as well, there is a social contract, but if the playerpack is not going to outline what is and what is not allowed then I will always follow the rules in the book first.
Play by the rules or you are not playing the game. You may not like the rules, and this may not be what was intended by the rules, but they are the rules.
My Social contract was to have a game of Warhammer at a tournament, under the rules of Warhammer (with any changes made in the the playpack). Not to play by the rules of a different game which I cannot even get to read because they are all in my opponents head. Even in a game of chess there is a social contract, yes you are timed so don't get to have any meaningful conversation in game, but you still have to shake hands and not be a total @#*# about the game. I am sure dancing around claiming how good you are because you are about to win in 2 moves no matter what your opponent does is frowned upon in chess as it is in Warhammer. Just as you dont have to get your opponent a drink if you are getting one yourself but I am sure most of us do this, it is all about being human, and not just a computer. And that is the social contract.

[SpellArcher]

That kind of behaviour is seen in chess and it is often tolerated a lot more than in Warhammer. I've had a Grandmaster refuse to shake my hand and storm off after losing to me. Spassky actually shook his fist at Korchnoi after a loss in a 1970's Candidates match but the games after are still played as normal. In contrast (sometimes very strong) players have been ostracized or outright banned for bad sportsmanship (the kind of things Ghost Warrior was citing) in Warhammer. The actual mechanics of a chess game are so much more rigidly defined.

Warhammer is so much more of a community thing. The UK indie tournament scene basically started with a few like-minded guys getting together and starting to organise their own events. When I started playing these there were only a few and guys would travel the country to all of them. There has always been a culture of consensus in the way the game is played, the idea being that it is more enjoyable for both players that way. A lot of communities do play by the 'spirit of the game' as they see it. It's not in 'a player's' head, it's in the way the community does things. A player can refuse to be bound by these conventions but will run into jokes etc. about it.

[Prince of Spires]

I keep wondering where the chess-warhammer comparison comes from. WH isn't anywhere near chess. Chess has a very strict set of rules with absolutely no room for interpretation. It also doesn't matter if you put your pawn right in the centre of a square or if you push him slightly to the side of it. Or if your queen can actually see all the fields she wants to move to.

WH on the other hand is a very very different game. Already line of sight works by consensus between players (or should). Even if you play BRB WH, getting down to the table top and actually looking at what your model can see if open to interpretation. So is seeing 50% or more of something. Or being in the front / side arc of a model. Or even measuring a distance. Just the way you actually look at a ruler can be a difference of a few mm. Which can be the difference between making a charge or not. The whole game of WH is riddled with these kind of things. So everything comes down to consensus and social interaction. And I agree with SA that a community usually knows what the social conventions are and what is frowned upon. And since WH is supposed to be fun, you might very soon find yourself running out of people to play with if you completely ignore social conventions...

Rod

[Swordmaster of Hoeth]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Just my opinion of course.

[Curu Olannon]

@Swordmaster of Hoeth - the topic here is "what do you consider gamey" not "what do you think about gamey play/players". I don`t see anything in your post addressing this. Did I miss something?

[HERO]

I think better written rules drastically reduces the amount of "gamey" terminology thrown around here.

I took a long break from the game to play other game systems and there's just no such thing as gamey. During my stay in Warmahordes (again), X-Wing and Spartan Games, there might have been one occasion where I thought a ruling was fishy.

How I think about using lesser known rules for the betterment of gameplay? I think it all depends on the crowd you play with. In a friendly game, I wouldn't bother because everyone's friendly. In a cut-throat competitive environment? Absolutely. In a friendly/competitive environment? Talk about it and dice off maybe, nothing to get worked up about.

[John Rainbow]

I took a long break from the game to play other game systems and there's just no such thing as gamey. During my stay in Warmahordes (again), X-Wing and Spartan Games, there might have been one occasion where I thought a ruling was fishy.

I agree that these games tend to have tight rulesets but on the other hand they have much much less content in terms of rules. I think things are bound to fall through some cracks in such an expansive ruleset as WFB/40k has. None of the other game systems come close to being as comprehensive as these GW ones are without being as clunky as some of the old skool WW2 rulesets that account for literally everything and take forever to play through.

[HERO]

Which is why I think 9th Ed. will have a better ruleset. It's a slow process going, and it all depends on how many big and radical changes they make from one edition to another. I've been playing the game for 14 years and have seen many editions, and I think is smoother than the others.

9th will play even quicker, faster and be more streamlined. In movement terms, I'm expecting something more like Kings of War.

[John Rainbow]

I haven't played any KoW. How does it differ?

I also only joined WFB relatively recently although I got involved in 40k back in 2nd ed. That system has made massive improvements over time although I prefer WFB a lot more these days. I really like 8th and tbh, I don't mind whether there is a new edition or not at the moment as I think (barring some minor problems) the game plays really well and is relatively quick once you get the basics down - certainly a lot faster than 40k.

[HERO]

I haven't played any KoW. How does it differ?

I also only joined WFB relatively recently although I got involved in 40k back in 2nd ed. That system has made massive improvements over time although I prefer WFB a lot more these days. I really like 8th and tbh, I don't mind whether there is a new edition or not at the moment as I think (barring some minor problems) the game plays really well and is relatively quick once you get the basics down - certainly a lot faster than 40k.

Just less wheel-related, more common-sense and smoother movement. It's one of those "if you're in, you're in" kind of things. Just measure the distance away from the target, and if you get the distance needed, you get the unit in there. Combats are also always maximized and you do so immediately, so minimize on awkward multiple combat scenarios.

If 9th will adopt that kind of movement, which I assume it will because it's makes the game much faster to play.

The rules for the game is free, just check it out:
http://www.manticgames.com/free-rules.html

But imagine Warhammer as it is now with KoW movement and imagine how much time you will save playing your game. The rules were written by Alessio Cavatore, a former GW lead rules designer

[Domine Nox]

The KoW diagram for charging and their description is almost identical to the Warhammer one, even using the same exact types of diagrams. I don't see how one is more clean than the other.

[Jedra]

Parking an eagle <1" to the side of a big block of infantry so it can't turn is probably the gamiest thing I've ever done.

You get some real glares when you take advantage of that.

[Mist]

Swordmaster, I respect you as a player and I think you have a sound tactical mind, but to compare taking a dive in soccer (which is clearly against the rules) and playing by the rules in Warhammer.
In warhammer I would compare taking a dive to: weighting your dice, fudging about stats on your army, fudging movement/ charge ranges and shooting ranges, claiming items that you don't have on your characters. All are cheating and get treated the same when you get caught.
Double flee, eagle/reaver blocking, placing a unit between a cannon and an enemy unit so they can not shoot it due to the possibility of hitting their own unit, railroading, overrun from the corner of units into other units, challenging a lone character on a monster with a unit champ, are valid tactics. These are all things which people do, and a good player will beat another player of lesser standard when they do it, but they are still valid tactics.
From my point of view there is no gamey, there is just the game. When the rules change, so will the tactics.

Just my opinion of cause.

[HERO]

The KoW diagram for charging and their description is almost identical to the Warhammer one, even using the same exact types of diagrams. I don't see how one is more clean than the other.

Chart looks similar, must be similar.

[Casazzo]

I agree with Swordmaster on this one. It's just a personal an subjective feeling .... but i feel dirty when playing the rules so exactly to get an advantage over my enemy. Furthermore ... Victory feels so much sweeter, if achieved while being generous to the opponent.

[Curu Olannon]

I agree with Swordmaster on this one. It's just a personal an subjective feeling .... but i feel dirty when playing the rules so exactly to get an advantage over my enemy. Furthermore ... Victory feels so much sweeter, if achieved while being generous to the opponent.

Again, the topic is what do you consider gamey, not what do you think about gamey play. Do you have anything to add with regards to that?

[Malossar]

I agree with Swordmaster on this one. It's just a personal an subjective feeling .... but i feel dirty when playing the rules so exactly to get an advantage over my enemy. Furthermore ... Victory feels so much sweeter, if achieved while being generous to the opponent.

Again, the topic is what do you consider gamey, not what do you think about gamey play. Do you have anything to add with regards to that?

They've answered the question to the topic. Both he and Swordmaster state that they frankly consider gamey any advantage gained by manipulating the rules.

[Curu Olannon]

What do you consider "manipulating the rules" though? This is the core of the question and obviously, as the thread has shown so far, people have different answers for that. That is why I am asking people to explicitly state things done ingame that they consider to be gamey, to get an overview. I consider many of the examples presented thus far to be anything but manipulating the rules. A long post on what Swordmasters thinks about gamey moves does not serve the thread in any way. At best, it`s noise.

[Casazzo]

Ok, here is some example:

For me "gamey" is:
- Congalining, like described above.
- Placing an own unit so in the way of another own unit, that it is safe from mischarging.


A grey zone for me is:
- double flee


Ok for me is:
- placing a unit 1" to an enemy unit to block it's movement

That are only a few examples out of many situations. But i hope you'll get the genereal feeling. I would not even be mad at my enemy for using theese tricks, but i do not consider using them for myself for the previous stated reasons. That has nothing to do with claiming higher moral ground or flamebaiting ... it's just that i want my enemys to have fun at the game for a longer period ... so that they play mor often with me .... so that i can play more often

No hard feelings intended. It's just the way I(!) feel. I do not have a mission to convert anyone to my view of things