What do you consider gamey?

[Curu Olannon]

This discussion arose in Swordmaster`s blog and he requested I make a separate thread for it. I`m eager to hear everyone`s thoughts on what you consider gamey. To start things off, I`ll provide some examples that I know some people perceive as gamey:
- single model charging single model and aligning corner-to-corner to create favourable overruns instead of aligning head-on
- unit charging other unit of equal width, aligning slightly off-corner to an enemy unit cannot counter-charge (basically the enemy has you in his front and by skewing the alignment a bit he can`t hit your front)
- congalines
- going smaller than 5 (basically smaller than what grants you rank bonus) and filling up the front rank with command and/or characters to hide characters in the 2nd or subsequent ranks
- combat reform shenanigans. For example: combat reforming away from a challenge to a corner to deny a wider enemy attacks on your unit
- blocking a unit on its corner so that it has to wheel 90 degrees and thus change direction entirely if charges you
- railroading a unit
- skirmishers congalining in woods to block and receive stubborn
- congalining with a champion first: you charge a unit and pretty much automatically win combat unless he has static. Example: 5 reavers congalined with champion in the front charges a chariot in the flank. Flank + charge = 2 and he can`t kill more than your champ - at best - so you automatically win. Even if he holds, he`s tied up for the next turn

So, what do you think? Note that I don`t necessarily consider the above gamey, I just wanted to provide a bunch of examples to get the discussion going. I`ll weigh in sometime later

[SpellArcher]

This is my fault isn't it?

I can see some readers thinking "I can do all this? Excellent!"

[Jimmy]

- single model charging single model and aligning corner-to-corner to create favourable overruns instead of aligning head-on
- unit charging other unit of equal width, aligning slightly off-corner to an enemy unit cannot counter-charge (basically the enemy has you in his front and by skewing the alignment a bit he can`t hit your front)

I don't think these are gamey in the slightest. Am I in the minority?

[Ferny]

This is my fault isn't it?

I can see some readers thinking "I can do all this? Excellent!"

Without wanting to accuse Curu of being gamey, these are kinda the 'higher level tricks' which I want to pick up from his blog! In fact, expanding on some of the less obvious ones was kinda what I was suggesting in my early 'feedback'/request for MOAR in your powerplay blog, so I'm glad it's got its own thread now.

I reckon I can improve my competitive game in a bunch of ways, including better knowledge of opponents books and options to better assess how to approach them (online reading and more game experience), improved deployment (e.g. reading bat reps and writing my own), better target prioritisation/force concentration (I find Swordmasters excellent detailed blog posts perfect for this - and then trying them in game)...and these kinds of tricks! There've been games on Curu's blog which have been won or lost on these tricks which often enough I didn't even realise were options. Even if I choose not to use them, I'd like to a) have the option to use them or choose not to, and b) know they could be used against me and plan appropriately.

As for which of those are gamey...broadly I appreciate them all (and some are new to me even reading them now) - I think as I gear up towards more tournament play maybe I'm starting to view them less as loopholes and more as 'advanced settings'. I am however very concious that there isn't consensus on this so I'd maybe be judicious in applying them.

[pk-ng]

None of the list are 'gamey' and Ferny put brilliantly as 'high level tricks'. It's pretty much knowing the rules better then your opponent. There's a fine line between what is 'gamey' and 'knowing your rules' and that line is very subjective. In a tournament none of these would be considered 'gamey' but in a friendly match or more relax / beerhammer style tournament this very well could be 'gamey'

What I consider 'gamey' is trying to take a undue advantage
i.e Story I heard from my Serbian opponent when they vs XXX country.
My Serbian friend had declared his first charge and measured the distance and confirmed it with his opponent. My Serbian then proceeded to move the model because he wanted to see how it fit at the charged unit. His XXX opponent declared that the charge phase was over as he moved his models.
This is a grey area and XXX had no basic gaming etiquette.

[Prince of Spires]

None of the list are 'gamey' and Ferny put brilliantly as 'high level tricks'

Actually, by my definition at least, that means that a fair few are gamey. Gamey is (to me) something that is technically allowed by the rules (and thus allowed in a tournament) but is also something where you use the rules in a way that was probably not intended when the rule was originally designed (and yes, I know that is a slippery slope) and you do so specifically to get an advantage in the game. It is something that counts as a higher level trick and something that would probably see some raised eyebrows in a friendly beer hammer game. Doesn't mean it's illegal, just gamey.

With this in mind, gamey for me is things like

- congalining, especially with stubborn units or champions at the front
- combat reform shenanigans
- placing units in such a way that you can't charge them but also can't move forward (like with skirmisher contractions or double eagles) or as in Furions Trick #11 in the GE tips and tricks tactica

Rod

[SpellArcher]

I feel it depends where you're playing. At some tournaments some of the above are frowned on. At the ETC you'd be fine. All depends on consensus.

[Ferny]

None of the list are 'gamey' and Ferny put brilliantly as 'high level tricks'

Actually, by my definition at least, that means that a fair few are gamey. Gamey is (to me) something that is technically allowed by the rules (and thus allowed in a tournament) but is also something where you use the rules in a way that was probably not intended when the rule was originally designed (and yes, I know that is a slippery slope) and you do so specifically to get an advantage in the game. It is something that counts as a higher level trick and something that would probably see some raised eyebrows in a friendly beer hammer game. Doesn't mean it's illegal, just gamey.

That's precisely why it's a troublesome term. Because 'gamey', 'not illegal' and 'higher level trick' or not mutually exclusive categories, especially if judged as 'loopholes' or areas where 'the rules where not originally intended', making, as you say, a slippery slope.

Say my opponent is an old school footslogging chaos player, who plays nice and has chaos heroes/lords leading their units (so we're not even talking lone characters here). He charges into my spearelves (ha!) expecting to make mincemeat of them with his hero/lord alone. But my elves are sneaky/have a brave champion in their midst, who steps out and challenges him. Well, my brave champion is no more and the warriors alone make mincemeat of my poor spear elves...but they hold on steadfast and the juggernaut is slowed. Core rules and good play on my part, no problem. Gamey? Probably not. Could it be perceived as gamey, by my chivalrous Chaos opponent who took such a gentle approach to list building? Of course - because gamey isn't defined. Most probably wouldn't agree with him, but where to draw the line. And how come that line changes in different settings?

On a facebook group I'm on someone asked 'is conga-lining gamey in a tournament' and the general response was 'well sure, you can do it, but I'm sure as hell gonna mark you down as 0 for sports points'. Which I know opens up a whole new kettle of fish (scoring tourneys, soft points, opponent allocated points etc.)...but my point is about the poorly defined and subjective nature of it. These players agree with Rod that it's allowed in a tourney...but then penalise it...but it wouldn't happen uniformly because not everyone would agree on what counts as gamey, and you wouldn't know before you play it, so you would neither know what to expect nor what level of 'gameyness' you can employ.

Now in a tourney I'd expect the field to be levelled in that 'anything gamey goes -if it's in the rules it's fair game'. Sure, it benefits people who know how to game it, but that's part of the gameyness, the higher level tricks as I called it. But you'd get plenty of folks unhappy about that because they'd perceive bad play when they encounter it (and those same folks are then disadvantaged by not employing it themselves). And that's the problem - as soon as you get a bunch of us together, you can't cater to all warhammer tastes. It's teh painting scores all over again. Or the bronie bretts. We're all coming from different perspectives (immersion vs goofy orky fun, maximum competitive play vs fun and pretzels etc).

I thought Curu put it very well in a post about war machine hunting - at times maximum fun and playing to win are mutually exclusive (e.g. corner hammer if your opponent has brought an impregnable castle and you don't wanna be a WWII general just for the fun of it). Obviously competitive players (as opposed to fun and pretzel - and they might even be the same people in different contexts) still want to have fun, but their axis for doing so isn't just to play the game but to play as hard a game as possible against others who will do likewise. I think to play cornerhammer would be boring, but if I were taking my tournament score seriously then it's something to consider...and I think the castling player is as much to blame for it as me - he's forcing me to decide between the Somme and boredom. I'd argue that's fine in fun and pretzels but kinda justifies gameyness in tourney play.

At the end of the day I think these things should either be allowed and expected or explicitly banned in comp packs/house rules. I don't mind which (though I think I lean towards permissiveness), but the current status of pariah moves...or depending on context and who you talk to sheer genius...is unhelpful.

[Peepster1976]

What are congalines, I don't understand....

[SpellArcher]

But consensus does work, most of the time. At a tournament you often find the guys on the bottom tables playing a relaxed, gentlemanly game while the top guys are sharper. Somewhere in the middle you have some of the above moves. There's kind of an unwritten understanding that they will be used sometimes. If every move your opponent makes is in this style, that may cause an issue.

Conga Lines are units in single file.

[Ferny]

But consensus does work, most of the time. At a tournament you often find the guys on the bottom tables playing a relaxed, gentlemanly game while the top guys are sharper. Somewhere in the middle you have some of the above moves. There's kind of an unwritten understanding that they will be used sometimes. If every move your opponent makes is in this style, that may cause an issue.

But that assumes you know where you'll be playing in the table standings, and indeed that you 'see yourself' as playing there.

In my three, small tournies I've played middle twice and bottom once. I don't kid myself that I'm a top table player, but when I go to tournies I play *with the intention of being* a top table player, even if it invariably isn't so. My favourite aspect of tournies is getting to play new opponents (and I also like seeing first hand the awesome armies hobbyists produce), but I do treat them as a competitive gaming arena where I ought to be bringing my 'top game' and I expect my opponents to do likewise. It's where, more than anywhere, I expect to be able to fast-track my gaming skills through gaming (practice games at the club are vs the same opponents, similar lists and limited codexes, and might well be 'beer and pretzel', though aren't necessarily).

If I'm stuck on the bottom tables - due to my own poor performance - I don't want to be seen as 'that guy' who is gamey, but tbh tournies are the environment where I think you really stretch yourself, and so I'd want to try some of the things I've learnt online. But I might not use them and just enjoy the game with a new opponent on the basis that by that point standing doesn't matter. But if I'm playing mid-tables, well, all the more reason to be using these 'tricks', as I stand a chance of getting higher - and even mid-table, rankings seem more important somehow. It's a question of whether I feel I'm playing 'better' warhammer than if I didn't do these things, and in the cases where doing these things would clearly be the best tactical option, if you know that it's something you can do then it would feel very wierd to not do it.

[Peepster1976]

Conga Lines are units in single file.

WHAT!? that in the reaver champion combination is really gamey indeed.

I don't pretend to be an experienced player, I still makes lot of error with the rules. But I think it's clear we all agree that GWs ability to write rules are really crap.... At least... To take advantage of this is not "cool" an in no way fun.....
but I agree with Rod in a competitive setting not illegal....

Nice topic though
Grtzz

.

[John Rainbow]

From the above list I don't really consider any to be gamey except maybe conga lines.

I do not like how some people use the building rules and reforms to their advantage though. Suddenly going from 5- to 30-wide and walking into one or some such and gaining a ridiculous amount of movement.

[SpellArcher]

Perhaps it depends which tournaments you play. But when I play a game as well as trying hard to win, I'm also playing for the feel of it, my most enjoyable games are where two armies that have been lovingly painted play as if it were a real battle, as far as possible. I feel congas etc. undermine this. This is not moralising, it's an aesthetic choice. A lot of players I meet play the same way.

Using the tactics Curu listed is only part of being a successful player. You can do pretty well without using any of them. Good players will see them coming, so any surprise value at least, is moot. Perhaps more importantly, to become a strong player you need to be aware that your opponent can do these things and plan accordingly.

[Curu Olannon]

Good discussion, please keep it going with examples of your own

I do not like how some people use the building rules and reforms to their advantage though. Suddenly going from 5- to 30-wide and walking into one or some such and gaining a ridiculous amount of movement.

Building rules are the worst rules in the whole BRB. Utterly abusable.

[Ferny]

Conga Lines are units in single file.

WHAT!? that in the reaver champion combination is really gamey indeed.

We use champs all the time as challenge blockers, and the concept of unit blocking with characters and champs is well known. It's not unusual to field reavers in odd formations (e.g. 3x2 or 2x2x1, or even 1x1x1x1x1 for blocking purposes). To do combine all this with a champ at the front is actually pretty neat I think. It reminds me of rear charging a chariot with them (times like those you really want a standard too, but who's gonna give reavers banners??).

But it's gotta be niche - mostly we use reavers as chaff, right, like eagles of old? Who actually buys reaver champs - you wanna keep the unit as cheap as possible! I buy base 80+musician to help their cheif role of flee/rally/block though I know a lot of folks do similar but with bows. But why on earth would you put a champ in there? With only 5 models including champ you're not gonna be getting steadfast and holding up lone flyers once he's dead. The extra BS is meh. The only time I've seen it is with dragonlords who need fast champions to take the challenge (and actually - there's a double bonus - you charge them in conga with just the champ at the front, specifically because you need the challenge block, but you're no longer bleeding CR) - the reavers are basically a champion delivery mechanism (beyond their usual duties). It's beautiful for a dragonlord list, but I don't see it happening anywhere else.

Does being niche make it less gamey? I dunno - those dragon lists are pretty min/maxed and there's not a lot else on the table. I think, as SpellArcher said, if you know it can happen then you can see it coming. Having seen it done (online) I'd expect it now. And actually, to not do it in that sort of scenario actually looks like disadvantaging yourself.

[Mist]

You missed double flee.
In my opp, if it is in the rules, you play by them, gamey is when you bend the rules to your advantage, not when you play the rules as written.
People only think of it as gamey when they have never seen it before.
Conga lines however is one that is a grey area, but you can have a character move from one unit to another and cover large distances, for example, start the turn on the right side of a unit, 10 wide, move 10" into another unit 10 wide and be on the left side of that unit.

[Baleanoon]

None of the list are 'gamey' and Ferny put brilliantly as 'high level tricks'. It's pretty much knowing the rules better then your opponent. There's a fine line between what is 'gamey' and 'knowing your rules' and that line is very subjective. In a tournament none of these would be considered 'gamey' but in a friendly match or more relax / beerhammer style tournament this very well could be 'gamey'

What I consider 'gamey' is trying to take a undue advantage
i.e Story I heard from my Serbian opponent when they vs XXX country.
My Serbian friend had declared his first charge and measured the distance and confirmed it with his opponent. My Serbian then proceeded to move the model because he wanted to see how it fit at the charged unit. His XXX opponent declared that the charge phase was over as he moved his models.
This is a grey area and XXX had no basic gaming etiquette.

That's... like the rules, as soon as you start rolling dice and moving models you are done declaring. In this specific case it might not have mattered, but on the whole it does matter. And in a situation where people have paid money you should expect a more stringent application of the rules. Because, who here is really being rude, the guy taking liberties with the rules or the one who wants to use the same rules every other table is using? I know it is sometimes hard to side with your friends opponent but in this case I would 100% be against your Serbian friend and as a TO rule against him.

When my friends and I practice there is generally an environment of mistakes get made, you don't get to go back, this way in the future you will remember to do it. When at events I generally make an assessment of the player, I generally know the "good" players in my area, but if its round 3 and you have 3 wins and I see you playing fast and loose with the movement rules I'm going to call you on it, even if I wouldn't do it to the same player round 1.

To the OP, I don't really find any of that gamey. Messing around with the center of combats is probably one of the best techniques used at a truly high level of play, and it is one of the reasons why HEs can be monstrous as board control.

[Domine Nox]

In my opp, if it is in the rules, you play by them, gamey is when you bend the rules to your advantage, not when you play the rules as written.

But all of these are not 'rules as written' aligning askew to get an overrun is not 'as written' it is taking an interpretation that is not illegal.

To say playing by the rules is fine, but bending them is not. What constitutes 'bending' ? None of these scenarios are explicitly stated in the rulebook for unit formation or alignment of units, so wouldn't that in essence be 'bending' the rules?

I'm not one to dictate how people play their games, and I understand different environs have their own take on matters, but I would consider several of these to be gamey in my environ (Single Model corner to corner, Misalignment of units of equal width, Congalining). And I find it worrisome that these 'tricks' are considered evidence of 'high level of play.' Skill is supposed to be skill, not finding ways to manipulate the rules in a way that others didn't bother to think of. If that's the defining feature of high play level, I hope that I never achieve greatness.

[SpellArcher]

Historically there was a problem at the ETC because English players were used to playing as Baleanoon has stated. Most continental teams were used to being able to move models backwards and forwards, so long as no dice rolling etc. had taken place because in their countries this was a generally accepted convention they felt made the game flow better.

[Ether Dude]

- single model charging single model and aligning corner-to-corner to create favourable overruns instead of aligning head-on

- unit charging other unit of equal width, aligning slightly off-corner to an enemy unit cannot counter-charge (basically the enemy has you in his front and by skewing the alignment a bit he can`t hit your front)
- blocking a unit on its corner so that it has to wheel 90 degrees and thus change direction entirely if charges you

These are fine.

- congalines
- going smaller than 5 (basically smaller than what grants you rank bonus) and filling up the front rank with command and/or characters to hide characters in the 2nd or subsequent ranks
- combat reform shenanigans. For example: combat reforming away from a challenge to a corner to deny a wider enemy attacks on your unit
- railroading a unit
- skirmishers congalining in woods to block and receive stubborn
- congalining with a champion first: you charge a unit and pretty much automatically win combat unless he has static. Example: 5 reavers congalined with champion in the front charges a chariot in the flank. Flank + charge = 2 and he can`t kill more than your champ - at best - so you automatically win. Even if he holds, he`s tied up for the next turn.

These are not.

My line seems to be the difference between getting to you vs denying you attacks. I don't mind things that make it hard to get to me, that's an interesting interaction and can be overcome by multiple units working together. This is fun.

I agree with Domine Nox, these tricks are not high level, they are spending too much time with the rule book, playing the rules not the game. The "high level techniques" (I choose to think of them as unintended risk mitigation) strike me as desperation moves. They are stupid-safe and all have to do with denying your opponent attacks that they *should* get. I waded through 6 units of diverters while soaking 2-3 cannon shots and 8 levels of magic per turn. I had to play smart and well to do so. And that can all be taken away by a 35 point magic item and conga lining.

Who wants to play a one-sided game? Not me. That's what all these exploits do; remove risk and make things one-sided.

Interestingly, you do not talk about challenges pulling units/characters out of combat or ensuring multiple rounds of steadfast or denying overkill. Why not?

[Ferny]

And I find it worrisome that these 'tricks' are considered evidence of 'high level of play.' Skill is supposed to be skill, not finding ways to manipulate the rules in a way that others didn't bother to think of. If that's the defining feature of high play level, I hope that I never achieve greatness.

I'm not a great player - I know I need to work on my deployment, target priorities, over-all gameplan, etc etc etc. These are all, I would say, pre-requisites to being a top player. Add in to that 'not making mistakes' and 'consistently taking advantage of mistakes where presented', and maybe 'playing the maths odds, but having a plan b if they fall through' and I think we're getting into the realms of top table gamers. (I'm not going to address list design here - I reckon that's a whole different topic).

I would judge a players skill level, in so far as I'm in any position to judge, by these things - not by the 'tricks'. But I would expect, in a game between players of roughly equal, high skill, these 'tricks' to be used and countered, or at least expected. And if you either a) don't know about or to expect them, or b) actively choose not to use them, then under a system which does not penalise their use, then you would be disadvantaging yourself. The reason I think of them as 'top level tricks' is because, while the same disadvantage applies at 'lower' levels, these things are exactly that - tricks. If you've not nailed your deployment, target priorities, gameplan etc, if you make mistakes and fail to capitalise on your opponents, then making use or not of these tricks is just window dressing IMO.

I don't think it takes away from a players skill level for them to not use these tricks. SpellArcher has said he doesn't like a few of them, and he's very active in tournies. This thread arose out of SwordMaster's* blog, and we know he dislikes a lot of these tricks - yet we've seen from his blog he's clearly a very competent general, and made no less so for not using them (although I would hazard he's a better general for his awareness of them, and the fact that they can be used against him). Maybe he'd win more using these tricks - I think he's probably at the level where it would make a difference - but he chooses not to use them and that does not make him a less skilled general. It probably does mean he's playing a slightly different game though - or maybe better put, the same game but with some slight handicaps. And as such, we might interpret his skill level as actually being (an unquantifiable) amount better than his track record would suggest if we were judging it by wins alone.

*I don't mean to malign anyone by bringing them into a conversation they're not active in, least of all Swordmaster who I respect hugely - this comment is meant as a positive rather than a negative so I hope it will be read as such. I've picked Swordmaster out because his blog speaks for itself as to player skill and he's explicitly come out as not liking to use these tricks (though not judging opponents who do), so he perfectly illustrates the case I'm making.

[Curu Olannon]

Interesting reactions here. I had no idea people had such passion for the topic.

The reason I haven`t mentioned every possible trick is because I was just listing examples to get the discussion going. There are probably dozens of things many would consider gamey that I didn`t list in the first post.

Going down to the rationale behind this, people are not seeking to bend the rules. People seek to exploit the rules. Those are 2 very different things. The goal of exploitation is to gain an opportunity, an advance you otherwise would not have. If you play against someone willing to employ these tricks and you don`t do so yourself, you are essentially handicapping your options relative to your opponent`s. If you want to do this that`s all good, but in the interest of a balanced game - be it competitive or relaxed - the important thing is that people are on the same level (which I believe the discussion so far shows).

I used to have a few things I didn`t like but as of now I don`t think there`s anything not being employed where I play nor in the tournaments I visit, apart from railroading (this is banned by the ETC). As for railroading I don`t know how it impacts the game as it`s pretty much always banned so I don`t know if I`d consider that gamey. Probably not

As for using these tricks being the hallmark of a top player: it depends on your environment. If you only play in tournaments that frown upon such moves and penalize players for (ab)using them, then you don`t need to. Likewise, if you play in an environment where anything is allowed you need to use them and know them to compete with the best. Just my small list at the top here include so many options that you otherwise would not have had. I use at least some of these options in virtually every game I play.

[SpellArcher]

It's not set in stone either way I think. As we've seen, several guys use some of these moves but not all and disagree on which ones are OK and which aren't.

My point was that a strong player will beat an average player irrespective of whether the average player uses these moves or not, they won't make enough of a difference to overcome a clear skill advantage. Between players of equivalent skill level however, they become more important. I would imagine that there are some players who have a similar attitude to me at your average tournament but who would play more intensively and less aesthetically at the ETC for example.

[Ferny]

My point was that a strong player will beat an average player irrespective of whether the average player uses these moves or not, they won't make enough of a difference to overcome a clear skill advantage. Between players of equivalent skill level however, they become more important.

This

[GhostWarrior]

Take all of the below as coming from a tournament focused perspective - as that has been my approach to the greater hobby since 8th edition was released.

I would say that many of the items mentioned could be considered gamey - but so what? If my knowledge and application of what is and is not allowed within the scope of the rules is what gets me a win, then I should be proud that I've put that much research and taken that much time to learn what works best.

I know that statement above will rub some people the wrong way - but it is what I feel. It is on the player to know what items are available to their opponent, and to develop counter-measures to those items.

I will say that the building rules are particularly abusable - which is a shame, because I love the concept of the rules - there was just a miss on some of the follow through. Despite this, I still prepare myself for the idea that an opponent of mine will try to hop into (and out of) a building to deny points. I work to develop solutions to that within my list and tactics - even if they are sometimes smaller odds then I'd like.


What is truly gamey for me is the communication (or lack of) from an opponent - or the concept of slow play. Items I have had happen to me at tournaments that I felt were gamey - and really might be more like cheating:

1. Playing in a doubles tournament - having 1 opponent offer to get us beers while his teammate is making a decision. While he's away, the at-the-table teammate decides that he needs to consult his beer-buying buddy before resolving the decision. Lost 5 more minutes vs. a slow player. That game came down to the wire, and we had to alert the judge that slow playing was happening.

2. Clearly defining my intent to my opponent when lining up a re-director (ie "By putting him here, I mean to block this unit's movement, and if you charge me, you'll come in like this - agree?"). In my magic phase, my opponent then states to me that I didn't achieve my desired intent - at which point I demand that he allow me to put it into a position where it would achieve the described effect - which he concedes to me.

3. This one didn't happen to me - A player lines up Dragon, stating to his opponent that the Dragon is out of line of sight of another unit - opponent gives little communication back. In opponents turn, he charges that Dragon with the unit. Player says "I thought I lined him up so that he was out of line of sight." Opponent says "Yeah, you said that - but I didn't agree to it." - Ouch

4. Playing on Table 1 in Round 4 (of 5) at an event against a multi-GT winner. He asks me how the Swift Reform rules work and I tell him. Then he decides he needs to confirm with the judge if that's how the rules work, and the judge confirms my description. He then proceeds to roll the test, and fail, and wants to take back the reform. I deny him that opportunity, and he states that he didn't realize that failing the roll meant he couldn't move. He then proceeds to try to reform virtually with a different unit, which I describe only really works based on how an individual tournament rules it and even if it worked, he couldn't finish his reform/pivot on top of a friendly unit, despite the fact that the move after the reform would get him off the unit. We spent over 15 minutes on that movement phase in a W/L/D event, and he had a points denial type army. Really, I think he knew how all of that stuff worked all along, and was just trying to prevent us from finishing 6 turns.

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.

ETC has some worst play documents, and though I don't play in ETC style events - I work to make sure that I don't use any of those maneuvers. On the flip side, by knowing about them, I prepare myself for the possibility that an opponent might use them against me.

Be prepared - that's the best advice I have. Part of being prepared is understanding what some people with small toy soldiers will do to win (or how they change when facing a loss).

[Casazzo]

- congalining with a champion first: you charge a unit and pretty much automatically win combat unless he has static. Example: 5 reavers congalined with champion in the front charges a chariot in the flank. Flank + charge = 2 and he can`t kill more than your champ - at best - so you automatically win. Even if he holds, he`s tied up for the next turn

I really dont understand, why step up should not work here? Do you challenge with the champ? Or how does it work?

[Curu Olannon]

The enemy strikes at the same initiative step. This means all have to target the champion. Step up still works, it just doesn't have an effect as the enemy is done with his attacks.

[Casazzo]

Ah ok. So it breaks down to the frontage, so that less modells can attack, if i understand it right.

[Prince of Spires]

Take all of the below as coming from a tournament focused perspective - as that has been my approach to the greater hobby since 8th edition was released.

I would say that many of the items mentioned could be considered gamey - but so what?

I agree here. In a tournament setting, if it is in the rules and not banned by the tournament, then feel free to use gamey stuff. It's part of the game. The setting is competitive. So anything goes (as long as it is legal).

In a friendlies setting (and not practicing for a tourney) it is a different thing. Then it depends on social conventions, opponent and play level etc. Building shenanigans for instance or conga-lining I would not accept in a friendly setting. A friendly setting (for me that is) is more about having a good time and creating an evocative battle then about winning at all cost.

Of course, in all this I have to stress that the guy and his attitude and personality across the table are infinite more important then using gamey rules or not. I'll gladly lose against a friendly, open, communicative and fun person, even if he uses gamey rules. I've also had games where I barely got 3 words out of my opponent outside of game related things. WH is still fun, but the social interaction of the game is as important as the actual game.

Rod