The New FAQ (23/07/2018)

[tolstedt]

I'm not interested in the precise movement aspect of a miniatures game.  This kind of precision is not really rewarding to me as a game player. 

I'm interested in making good trades, risk/reward summations, seeing if predictions held out or not, using my pieces where they get the best value, making a list that can provide counterplay based on the abilities of the unit.  That kind of thing is challenging and interesting.  The point at which you have to break out a 2.9 template to do a tactic is the point it becomes fiddly for me and not worth the hassle.

But these are my own motivations.  

2.9ing could easily be thought of as taking advantage of poor positioning on the opponent's part.  If you don't want your dragon pinned, don't put him so close.  If you don't want a unit of elites tagged on the side so that only one can ever pile in and swing when they get charged, put them in a clump rather than in a line.  

In practice I think that it will be very difficult to get value out of 2.9ing.  The best value would be to tie up a large monster with cheap chaff.  Maybe 100 points for 500.  But most of the time I think the monster will be able to retreat. 

Is a single forced retreat too large of an advantage?  I'm not sure.

TLDR talk and no conclusions

[Ravinsild]

Removing units to deny pile in and saving yourself some damage isn’t being that guy. 

Deploying your units in a tactical way to protect Heros and hold objectives isn’t being that guy. 

However being absolutely adamant about measuring every little millimeter just so you can use a gimmicky exploit to “freeze” a unit is pretty close to being to being that guy.

As in can we  just move on and keep the game going? You become that guy when you stop the flow of the game in order to get down into the absolute smallest minutiae of the rules in order to try and hedge out some trivial advantage like freezing up a hero. 

In other words: putting an exorbitant amount of effort into something super trivial and minor to get some benefit which brings the game to a halt because you can’t just let it go and keep playing. 

It takes a whole lot of pre-planning and effort to get each and every single model in your unit exactly 2.9” away to freeze said Alleged spooky melee hero than it is to just move them in to the closest enemy model. 

The whole point of the piling in rules is that it’s not optional. It goes hand in hand with the “you cannot elect to not fight in the combat phase” rule. RAI you just push all your models as close to your enemies models as possible and with these rules you’re supposed to be able to get even more guys in than previously, hence the sliding around bit. 

It is not RAI for you to stop 2.9” away to freeze your enemies models and it takes way more effort and preplanning because ordinarily you are forced to move base to base into the closest enemy model. 

[Ravinsild]

1 hour ago, jackmcmahon said:

I have come to realize that when people use the term "that guy" on tga, they are my version of "that guy."  I would rather play people that are not sore losers, but I would never stop playing with someone because of their tactics or a bad reaction to a loss.  I think many on tga are quick to say "don't play w them" and it slows the growth of a community.  My experience in person with Aos players is always that they are extremely welcoming, willing to teach, include and grow the community.  The transformation that happens when they (myself included) log in saddens me.

And my experience is a bunch of “competitive” players that net-list but don’t really go to tournaments and think they’re gods gift to earth and smashed my teeth in with fully grown lists whilst I had a handful of random units and a start collecting box. 

These guys were so brutal they beat me out of the hobby until the GW manager reached out to me on why he hadn’t seen me around in 8 months. This was 2 months after I started playing. 

So your experience in this warm haloed group of welcoming people willing to teach may vary. 

[jackmcmahon]

2 minutes ago, Ravinsild said:

And my experience is a bunch of “competitive” players that net-list but don’t really go to tournaments and think they’re gods gift to earth and smashed my teeth in with fully grown lists whilst I had a handful of random units and a start collecting box. 

These guys were so brutal they beat me out of the hobby until the GW manager reached out to me on why he hadn’t seen me around in 8 months. This was 2 months after I started playing. 

So your experience in this warm haloed group of welcoming people willing to teach may vary. 

Beating you is not unwelcoming.  You can learn from them and ask questions to improve.  If they were to handicap themselves when they played against you, THAT would be thinking they are God's gift to Earth.  That would be treating you like a child.  Of course you will lose whenever you start anything new.  Personally, I can't be mad at my opponent for wanting to win a game that has winners and losers.  Even more so because I want the same thing.  I am by no means a great player and realize this.  I would like to be better every game, though so I try to use losses as a lesson.

[Ravinsild]

18 minutes ago, jackmcmahon said:

Beating you is not unwelcoming.  You can learn from them and ask questions to improve.  If they were to handicap themselves when they played against you, THAT would be thinking they are God's gift to Earth.  That would be treating you like a child.  Of course you will lose whenever you start anything new.  Personally, I can't be mad at my opponent for wanting to win a game that has winners and losers.  Even more so because I want the same thing.  I am by no means a great player and realize this.  I would like to be better every game, though so I try to use losses as a lesson.

Yeah no cool let me use my Stormsurge (which is a Lord of War) and fully optimized tournament (I later found out) T’au list against your Start Collecting! Space Wolves box and a few units borrowed from another guy for a cobbled together 2,000 point list win no synergy. It’s just a friendly game right? 

Played the same guy again who brought a different T’au list with Drone Pods and 10 marketlight drones and a bunch of infantry with a Riptide. 

We deployed long ways so our deployment zones were at the shortest ends of the table with 4’ between us. All the terrain was set up, however, on the sides making a tunnel basically, because it was set up for deployment zones on the 6’ side of the table. So there was 0 LoS blocking terrain for my melee army. 

I asked if I could move any of the terrain or reconfigure it and he was like, “Nah, better not.” Proceeded to get tabled in turn 2. 

Nice, fun, welcoming guys these. 

Not to mention the guy who brought an entire armory of Imperial Guard against my Space Wolves. I don’t even know the names of the tanks but it was an entire tank list with a few Ogrons. Once again, a Start Collecting! Box and a few borrowed units and I didn’t even have a Rhino yet. 

Or the time someone brought Kunnin’ Rukk against my 2 Seraphon Start Collecting! Boxes and a unit of Seraphon Guard. 

[michu]

There's a difference between losing against better player with an army on similar level and losing against better player who "brings a gun to a knife fight". It's not about handicapping, it's about not bringing tournament-level army to a game with beginner. Where's the satisfaction in easy win?

[Overread]

Lets not get distracted here. 

If the rules allow it then its legal and perfectly fine to do in game. If there is an area where the rules as they are written allows for there to be abuse of the system then its up to GW to fix it. Rules as intended is a  terribly hazy area of guesswork and personal opinion. Furthermore its never "that guy" to use the rules as they are written down - its just good playing.

Which is exactly the same as bringing a good list - note there's no such thing as a "net list". That's a myth mostly created by card game players ;). A good list is a good list doesn't matter if you spent years working it out; sat down for hours and did the maths' lucky picked it or got it off a friend/event/internet website. 

 

 

Now I very much AGREE that a beginner getting beaten by a ranged army when there's a clear power and skill level difference isn't fun. At that stage a better player should really be aiming to help teach and if you're having to cobble together an army smaller point battles are more fair. Good terrain placement is also important *has suffered bad terrain when playing tyranids against Tau - it was a slaughter -granted that was several editions ago when Tau were supremely overpowered esp against nids)

[whispersofblood]

5 minutes ago, Ravinsild said:

Yeah no cool let me use my Stormsurge (which is a Lord of War) and fully optimized tournament (I later found out) T’au list against your Start Collecting! Space Wolves box and a few units borrowed from another guy for a cobbled together 2,000 point list win no synergy. It’s just a friendly game right? 

 

 

3 minutes ago, michu said:

There's a difference between losing against better player with an army on similar level and losing against better player who brings gun to a knife fight.

All of life is using your knife in a gun fight. The only presumption of fairness is that you are bound by the same rules inside the game.

But being in the hobby longer, or just having more money can't be equalized. You have to figure out your handicap and play on regardless. I learned to play whfb in a store dominated by the best tournament players with fat wallets. I learned a lot, and lost a lot but that was the environment I had to play in and no one cheated me.

I don't understand people's desire to be infantilized in order to trick themselves into thinking they should stand a chance at winning the game. Do you want to learn the game or do you want to feel good about your random assortment  of models?

[tolstedt]

36 minutes ago, Ravinsild said:

In other words: putting an exorbitant amount of effort into something super trivial and minor to get some benefit which brings the game to a halt 

I like this way of saying it.  Getting too much out of something fiddly doesn't feel rewarding to me.  It's an investment of time as opposed to an investment of good decision making.  Feels odd to me.

 

22 minutes ago, jackmcmahon said:

Beating you is not unwelcoming.  You can learn from them and ask questions to improve.  If they were to handicap themselves when they played against you, THAT would be thinking they are God's gift to Earth.  That would be treating you like a child.  

I agree with this thinking for the most part, but in terms of warhammer, it is largely up to the players to ensure a good game. 
It's not chess where the game does the balancing for you.

For example I stopped playing mixed destruction kunnin' rukk against my opponent's death army in 2016 because it was a bad matchup for him and didn't give him any chances.  If he doesn't have chances, it's not fun for me either.

[michu]

@whispersofblood Learning how to play does not have to mean "on competitive level". Thrashing new player with superior army could make him leave the game before he even started. If your opponent is a beginner with a Start Collecting!-based army and he want you to teach him just basic rules, don't bring your Tzeentch Changehost to that game. \

[sirbrokensword]

54 minutes ago, Ravinsild said:

Removing units to deny pile in and saving yourself some damage isn’t being that guy. 

Deploying your units in a tactical way to protect Heros and hold objectives isn’t being that guy. 

However being absolutely adamant about measuring every little millimeter just so you can use a gimmicky exploit to “freeze” a unit is pretty close to being to being that guy.

As in can we  just move on and keep the game going? You become that guy when you stop the flow of the game in order to get down into the absolute smallest minutiae of the rules in order to try and hedge out some trivial advantage like freezing up a hero. 

In other words: putting an exorbitant amount of effort into something super trivial and minor to get some benefit which brings the game to a halt because you can’t just let it go and keep playing. 

It takes a whole lot of pre-planning and effort to get each and every single model in your unit exactly 2.9” away to freeze said Alleged spooky melee hero than it is to just move them in to the closest enemy model. 

The whole point of the piling in rules is that it’s not optional. It goes hand in hand with the “you cannot elect to not fight in the combat phase” rule. RAI you just push all your models as close to your enemies models as possible and with these rules you’re supposed to be able to get even more guys in than previously, hence the sliding around bit. 

It is not RAI for you to stop 2.9” away to freeze your enemies models and it takes way more effort and preplanning because ordinarily you are forced to move base to base into the closest enemy model. 

It wont slow the game down. I can do it in less than 1 minute. Pop a template down, move guy, done. now if you want to argue over it you would be slowing the game down and disrupting the flow.   I also think this is a dumb rule, which is why GW should change it... I suspect they won't though.

[Dead Scribe]

21 minutes ago, michu said:

There's a difference between losing against better player with an army on similar level and losing against better player who "brings a gun to a knife fight". It's not about handicapping, it's about not bringing tournament-level army to a game with beginner. Where's the satisfaction in easy win?

There is no satisfaction in the easy win.  The point in bringing a proper real list against a new player is to show them what the extreme end of the game looks like so that they can be aware of it and can be coached to not go after the units and models that perform poorly.  

When we play new players we don't go soft on them either.  Its not because we enjoy "clubbing baby seals" or getting easy wins, its because we want to teach the new players how to play at the competitive level so that they can improve their game and learn how to play at that level.  Playing them soft does not teach them that.

Any new players that join us are also fully aware of what they are getting into.  Whenever any new player asks for a game and any of my club agrees to play them they are always told up front that the only mode we know of is full tilt and that we don't play soft.

The end result is that we have a solid competitive base that plays the game well and helps each other improve.  

But NONE of us want easy wins or play to get easy wins, we just want to make sure that the competitive aspect of the game is coached correctly so that our competitive community grows and flourishes.

[michu]

Remember that people are different. Not everyone will like being utterly devastated during first game. Teaching the competitive play should be during second training game. In my opinion the purpose of the first game should be teaching basic rules and bringing as much fun for new player as it's possible.

[Dead Scribe]

Thats why we let people know well in advance what they are getting into. 

[BaldoBeardo]

2 hours ago, jackmcmahon said:

Not only is it a valid tactic, its in like 90% of movies.  2-3 ppl roaming through desert or countryside and every time what happens? Surrounded by 20 ppl on horseback.  They circle around them until the leader slowly approaches and says gtfo my land! (Aos version: retreat move) if they don't, fight ensues with leader.

Except the people who are surrounded aren't mysteriously frozen to the spot.

[BaldoBeardo]

52 minutes ago, Dead Scribe said:

Thats why we let people know well in advance what they are getting into. 

Your gaming group are giving off a very R Lee Ermey vibe by your description.

[amysrevenge]

Templates won't get the "exactly the same distance" result you need.  Templates give you "no closer than the length of the template", not "exactly the length of the template".  Again - you need explicit consent.  This consent is a normal part of the game, and is normally not an issue. 

"I'm summoning my dudes in a semicircle around your monster, I've measured it reasonably well.  Everyone is exactly juuuust outside 9" away, so we know where they are when the charge phase comes.  If a measuring mistake was made that nudges a model closer than 9 inches, that's a mistake, they are at 9 inches.  That cool?"

"I'm setting up my wizard here, I've measured it the best I can and my intent is to be juuuust inside 30" from your wizard, for unbinding purposes.  If we check it later and I'm outside 30, that means something got nudged - we'll correct it then.  That cool?"

"I'm setting this unit up so that these two guys are in close, and the rest are all at the exact same distance juuuust inside 3 inches away, so that once the two guys inside are dead you'll be exactly the same distance away from all the other guys.  That cool?"

[Urauloth]

 

1 hour ago, whispersofblood said:

All of life is using your knife in a gun fight. The only presumption of fairness is that you are bound by the same rules inside the game.

I don't understand people's desire to be infantilized in order to trick themselves into thinking they should stand a chance at winning the game. Do you want to learn the game or do you want to feel good about your random assortment  of models?

I don't think anyone is starting a new tabletop game to be taught life lessons about how the world isn't fair. I also don't think it's particularly reasonable to look at introducing new people with anything other than your tournament minmax list as "infantilizing", and locking yourself into that attitude is going to mean missing out on things like narrative gaming entirely. For some people narrative play is the main thrust of AoS. Is there no place for them in your gaming group? Even if you enjoy competition - and I say this as someone who enjoys min/maxing and who's taken part in tournaments in the past - treating your FLGS as nothing but a boot camp for tournaments isn't cultivating a whole or healthy scene.

[blueshirtman]

1 hour ago, michu said:

Remember that people are different. Not everyone will like being utterly devastated during first game. Teaching the competitive play should be during second training game. In my opinion the purpose of the first game should be teaching basic rules and bringing as much fun for new player as it's possible.

first game lost isn't that bad. It starts being real bad when you get in to the 4-6month of playing, and more important a lot of money spend on the models, and see no improvment. The thing is no one is going to tell you that the army you picked is very bad most of the time. The store owners want to sells stuff, the older players either want to sell their unsellable stuff or they don't care because your new, you don't know and people online will tell you that everything is fine and "buy starter sets".  the toughest moment, if you happened to end up with a weak or bad army, is when you start realising that there is few or no things to fix, and the only way to deal with your army problem is buy a new army. For some people this is the end game, because they don't want to risk buying another army which may end up bad. Others do buy a good army, and start having fun, but the shadow of spending 500-700$ on unplayable stuff always looms at the back of their heads.

[blueshirtman]

15 minutes ago, amysrevenge said:

Templates won't get the "exactly the same distance" result you need.  Templates give you "no closer than the length of the template", not "exactly the length of the template".  Again - you need explicit consent.  This consent is a normal part of the game, and is normally not an issue. 

"I'm summoning my dudes in a semicircle around your monster, I've measured it reasonably well.  Everyone is exactly juuuust outside 9" away, so we know where they are when the charge phase comes.  If a measuring mistake was made that nudges a model closer than 9 inches, that's a mistake, they are at 9 inches.  That cool?"

"I'm setting up my wizard here, I've measured it the best I can and my intent is to be juuuust inside 30" from your wizard, for unbinding purposes.  If we check it later and I'm outside 30, that means something got nudged - we'll correct it then.  That cool?"

"I'm setting this unit up so that these two guys are in close, and the rest are all at the exact same distance juuuust inside 3 inches away, so that once the two guys inside are dead you'll be exactly the same distance away from all the other guys.  That cool?"

I have seen or rather heard people playing like that, it does require trust from both people playing. Can speed up the game, but also opens up the doors to people having an easier time cheating by claiming they made a "mistake". Plus it teachs people to be lazy, instead of learning what X" range is without any tools, or how to check all LoS fast. And those people later feel cheated, when they play against someone who is not ok  with playing that way.

[blueshirtman]

1 hour ago, Dead Scribe said:

Thats why we let people know well in advance what they are getting into. 

IMO the more fair thing to do. Having a dude spend 500$ on an army that won't work, does not help the gaming community. At best the guy will leave and never come back, but at worse he will stay, pick up another system and then each new player will come in to the store will run in to him and his horror story, and rethink twice if they want to play AoS. Getting new players in to GW games is already tough, I don't think we need to handicap ourselfs in that effort.

[amysrevenge]

Just now, blueshirtman said:

I have seen or rather heard people playing like that, it does require trust from both people playing. Can speed up the game, but also opens up the doors to people having an easier time cheating by claiming they made a "mistake". Plus it teachs people to be lazy, instead of learning what X" range is without any tools, or how to check all LoS fast. And those people later feel cheated, when they play against someone who is not ok  with playing that way.

It's not so much fudging or playing loose, as it is agreeing out loud on measurement results as movement happens.  It prevents nudging or cheating, not encourages it.  If you agree out loud that units are just over 9 inches apart when you finish moving them, only to find that they are actually 10 inches apart later, you move them back to 9 inches because they must have gotten nudged out of place at some point.

[blueshirtman]

Just now, amysrevenge said:

It's not so much fudging or playing loose, as it is agreeing out loud on measurement results as movement happens.  It prevents nudging or cheating, not encourages it.  If you agree out loud that units are just over 9 inches apart when you finish moving them, only to find that they are actually 10 inches apart later, you move them back to 9 inches because they must have gotten nudged out of place at some point.

Ok try to that on an event, and then prove to the judge that this is exactly the thing you agreed on unless it is taped. Worse if your opponent disagrees to play that way, you will think that he is an A hole.

Also how do you move something back to the exact same place. your would have to leave markers everywhere and that would slow the game down, because now people would stop to argue about range of movment, but about placment of those markers.

Plus again this opens the gates to people good with cheating. I could redeploy my stonehorn easily if my opponent said I have to take a move back, the base is huge, even if we mark it with a dice, all I would need to do is to lean on the table and the dice will move the way I want. And you wouldn't be able to prove to a judge I did that.

[amysrevenge]

People who are willing to boldly lie to a TO will always be able to cheat.

 

ETA:  This is about facilitating normal gameplay between normal people.  It is insurance against measurement errors that could result in illegal formations (summoned units accidentally inside 9 inches, moved models within 3 inches, etc.)  or slight nudging of models that were placed as precisely as possible.  This is NOT about hindering or preventing deliberate cheating.  You've got a much bigger problem if you're up against people who are deliberately cheating.

[whispersofblood]

1 hour ago, michu said:

@whispersofblood Learning how to play does not have to mean "on competitive level". Thrashing new player with superior army could make him leave the game before he even started. If your opponent is a beginner with a Start Collecting!-based army and he want you to teach him just basic rules, don't bring your Tzeentch Changehost to that game. \

Its a good thing that start collecting is about 500-650 points then, so said match up shouldn't be person first game. I never understood a persons desire to have reality conform to their desires. If you want to take the least expensive route to 2k then be prepared for the obvious outcome of losing games. Your goal as a beginner in ANYTHING is to learn how to do that thing. You can't hide from reality while you learn, you adjust your expectations while you gain valuable knowledge, wisdom and experience. 

The genesis of this discussion started with a stormsurge which isn't even a very competitive model in a non-competitive army. The game doesn't get any less extreme than that I'm afraid. Its better they learn if they have the constitution (either losing with what you love frequently or going for the win) for this game now then 750 quid or local equivalent deep.