Jump to content

For how long can you keep your armylist secret?


gronnelg

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, Sleboda said:

According to ... what, exactly?

Page 311 of the Big Rule Book under Matched Play rules.

Army Roster subsection - first paragraph states that you write out your army list and show it to your opponent prior to deployment/start of the battle. Below that it states the content of the roster - basically all army details. The only details you can leave off are specifically mentioned on warscroll cards such as which unit an assassin unit is hidden within. Typically those note that the unit is written on a separate bit of paper and that is placed in a visual but covered spot during the game and is revealed when you reveal the assassin in the unit (or that unit is destroyed). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 51
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Carry over or not, I still don't see anything in the rules of AoS that require, or even encourage, me to give my opponents info about my army that they have no rules-based claim to having.

Exchanging a list after the game should prevent folks from cheating as they would be found out.

The models themselves give info (you see a shield on a Grave Guard, he had a shield. You want to know what that means, I'll tell you just to save the time of you looking up the freely available warscroll).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Overread said:

Page 311 of the Big Rule Book under Matched Play rules.

Army Roster subsection - first paragraph states that you write out your army list and show it to your opponent prior to deployment/start of the battle. Below that it states the content of the roster - basically all army details. The only details you can leave off are specifically mentioned on warscroll cards such as which unit an assassin unit is hidden within. Typically those note that the unit is written on a separate bit of paper and that is placed in a visual but covered spot during the game and is revealed when you reveal the assassin in the unit (or that unit is destroyed). 

Well sourced!

I stand corrected.

Thank you!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Sleboda said:

Well sourced!

I stand corrected.

Thank you!

No worries. It should be noted that pretty much every GW game has been the same - open information approach. So its one of those things experienced players take for granted even without checking (hence why most of us didn't even glance at the rules or know where to look for an official stance on it). IF GW were to change it to hidden information it would be something they'd have to highlight very specifically in the rules; otherwise most players will generally assume its full open disclosure of information. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been playing GW games for 35 years, in different groups and in different parts of the world. The reference you have me was the very first time I've ever seen a GW rule telling me that my information was to be shared before a game. (Fun point for those talking about putting up a screen for deployment - that used to be the way it was done normally!)

Other than the few events that added rules telling me to share lists, my opponents and I never have.

In fact, it's always been a great bit of fun, to probe the enemy to extract info. 

"Send in the free company. Let's see if that evemy cavalry has any nasty tricks in store ... *Crunch scream oof* Well then. Brave lads. They will be remembered. Right. Let's avoid the enemy cavalry, shall we?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The "disclosure phase" in WFB was a delicate dance.  What things you were obliged to disclose, and what things you were not.  What things you could choose to disclose as a favour (rather than forcing your opponent to look it up themselves) vs. what things you could keep close for every advantage.

Something like:

  • "This unit of 6 Ogre Ironguts has a standard, musician, and champion." - all of that is information you were required to disclose. 
  • "They could have a magic banner, up to 50 points."  - disclose as a favour, as it's not a secret.  The opponent could look it up.  If you're scrambling for advantages, you could avoid mentioning it and hope they forget.
  • "The banner is the Runemaw." - not required to disclose.  Bad idea to say it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Remember the Staff of Volans?

For those who don't, the bearer had Total Power on his spells. That was like rolling a 12 now and your opponent not having any possible option to unbind. After casting, you rolled a die. On a 1, it stopped working.

I had a buddy who took it all the time.

In those days, without getting to much into detail, dispelling (unbinding) was limited and used resources.

There was nothing in the rules that indicated that I was entitled to know his staff was or was not used up, so he would roll in secret, putting me in a bind as to wether I should expend resources on his spell. If the staff was used up, I should try. If it was not, trying wasted resources. It was a fun bit of tension!

I miss those days.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Sleboda said:

Interesting.

In all my years of going to tournaments, it's been rare that exchanging of lists prior to the game had been required. If exchange timing has been specified, it's after the game - precisely so that hidden info remains hidden (for example, which units contained fanatics or assassins in WFB). 

Usually you are required to exchange lists, and usually timing is not specified.

I normally try to lead by example and if my opponent hands me their list at the start of the game, I place it face down and say something to them about how I don't want to spoil the surprises or know things my army wouldn't know.

It just seems absurd that my army would know which magic items your army has and who is carrying them.

This is quite a large difference between AOS and 8th ed. In 8th I would never know my opp. list. In AOS I always know it. All events I play use the BCP app and I can pull up my opp. list on the app at any time. 

I am of the firm belief that many opp. cheated in 8th. Often when asked for there list they would state that they forgot to right it down and I believe there magic items changed between games and TOs didn't enforce consequences for these behaviors at the events I attended. This doesn't happen anymore with the transparency of providing lists and it seems like a natural evolution of the game imo.

GW understands this as well: I only play Matched Play which starts on pg 307 of the core book. Here is a section from pg 311 on army rosters.

Once you have picked your army,
record the details on a piece of paper
(your army roster), and show it to
your opponent before setting up
your army at the start of the battle.
See page 320 for an army roster you
can photocopy.

The roster must include a list of
the units, warscroll battalions and
endless spells included in your army,
what size the units are, details of
weapons and equipment they have,
the army’s allegiance, which units
are allies, the number of command
points you have, and which model
is the army’s general. In a Pitched
Battle, your general must be a
Leader, and may not be an ally.

Note none of this is true for open play and narrative play. Read those sections for the core book for what you should do. I bet you could totally play play a fun open/narrative game with secret list. Not in matched play however.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SwampHeart said:

This is a WHFB mentality and doesn't really carry over to AoS. 

IMO the WHFB carry over is the single worst thing about playing AOS. They are different games with different rules and it is difficult to interact with a player who wants to use the mindset of a game we are not currently playing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Open and Narrative are basically GW saying "do whatever you want - you can play with matchsticks and require your opponent to drink a shot of whisky every time they lose a mortal wound on a model" if you want. It's just formalised casual play. So yeah if you and your opponent agree to it you can play with hidden armies; secret deployments; abnormal points values; without points; with no army limits; with no grand alliance limits etc.... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sleboda said:

Remember the Staff of Volans?

For those who don't, the bearer had Total Power on his spells. That was like rolling a 12 now and your opponent not having any possible option to unbind. After casting, you rolled a die. On a 1, it stopped working.

I had a buddy who took it all the time.

In those days, without getting to much into detail, dispelling (unbinding) was limited and used resources.

There was nothing in the rules that indicated that I was entitled to know his staff was or was not used up, so he would roll in secret, putting me in a bind as to wether I should expend resources on his spell. If the staff was used up, I should try. If it was not, trying wasted resources. It was a fun bit of tension!

I miss those days.

Van Horstman’s Speculum was a good one in sixth. Swap the Respective profiles of the bearer and their attacker. Killed a few Vampire Lords with an Empire Engineer with that one in my time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/22/2019 at 9:30 AM, gronnelg said:

Does the rules say anything about when you have to reveal your armylist? What is typical at tournaments? 

Standard tournament etiquette is to let your opponent know as much as possible about your army before play begins.

You don't have to give away what you're GOING to do, but you absolutely must tell them what you CAN do. For example, you have a combo where you can deepstrike a unit, switch places with a different unit, and give the second unit+1 attack. You should tell you opponent at the beginning of the game 'this ability lets this unit deepstrike, this ability lets one unit switch places with another unit, this ability gives a unit +1 attack.

There's some onus on your opponent to ask good questions, but you should be looming to avoid rules 'gotchas' whereever possible. Deliberately taking advantage of an opponents unfamiliarity with your army is a good way to get a really bad sportsmanship score(or punched).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Belper said:

Deliberately taking advantage of an opponents unfamiliarity with your army is a good way to get a really bad sportsmanship score(or punched).

I've been corrected about what you have to share ahead of time, but I still will disagree with this.

Knowledge of possibilities and experience against them are part of a player's development and are factors in separating better players from those who are not yet as good.

A good player is, in part, a good player because he knows more and is able to use his opponent's lack of knowledge to his advantage.

When in a competition, there is nothing sensible about choosing to give away an advantage you've earned, nor is it unsporting to maintain that advantage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Sleboda said:

I've been corrected about what you have to share ahead of time, but I still will disagree with this.

Knowledge of possibilities and experience against them are okay of a player's development and are a factor in separating better players from those who are not yet as good.

Yes and no.

If better is simply because a player has memorized the stats of most of the game then its not so much that they are showing greater skill, just that they've studied the numbers harder. Plus its not secret information that you can hide from your opponent. They can freely pick up a copy of your army's battletome and read the stats. It's just more polite and quicker for you to give that information over if asked. Heck if you're using warscroll cards you'll likely have them laid out in front of you on the table so its hardly hiding information.

Of course you don't have to say what you are going to do with those units nor what they will be good/bad against. You expect your opponent to have the skill to comprehend the stats rather than the ability to memorize them. It can also be helpful to name units as you put them down just to confirm with your opponent what is what.

 

Again you're not giving away any information that isn't already on the table, you are just clarifying it for your opponent. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure, answer their questions about factual data should they have them. I'm saying it's not up to me to educate my opponent, at the table, in the rules. 

Studying, memorizing, recalling ... gathering and organizing information for efficient use really is a part of being a better player, and it often takes experience and effort to reach a point where you have that knowledge at the ready in your mind.

We practice a thing for many reasons. One of those is so that we are not mentally paralyzed by decision making. You hear athletes talk about it all the time - study the play book and then practice, practice, practice so that your athletic skills can take over because you're not thinking about what the play call means. It's a factor many second year players, and their coaches, cite when explaining why they made such improvements from year one to year two.

So, again, yes, save time by answering your opponent's questions about commonly available facts, give them a copy of your list, model WYSIWYG so you don't trick them. Do all that.

But don't feel like you have to tell them proactively what all your stuff can do. Let them accumulate knowledge and experience just as you did - play, learn, and earn it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is a little bit off-topic, but the main question was answered quite well, so I'll just chip in on my view on the nature of open information in regards to a competitive mindset. Aimed at no one in particular :)

Witholding information to give yourself an edge is self-defeating. You are not a better strategist, rather a completely average poker player. 

Anyone can withhold information and win. It is easy, and gives no measurement to actual strategic or tactical skill. Only in games specifically designed for misdirection and ploys does it hold any value. AoS is not that game. 

Give the opponent the disposition of your forces, your choice of artifacts and spells, while simultaneously receiving theirs, and you're suddently on even footing from a mental perspective, and only your individual choices from there will determine the victor. Fight fair, or don't fight at all.

Which roughly translates to: if you can't trust yourself to win without "aha!"'ing your opponent, then perhaps a competitive approach is not the way ;)

 

*Unless both players wants to play it hidden, as seems to be the goal of the original post ;) all the power to you. It will probably be well entertaining for everyone involved. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll point out that I'm not looking for the aha or gotchya moments. I'm just highlighting that accumulated knowledge and experience are valuable in a game and that it doesn't seem right to ask a player who invested in gaining both to forfeit that effort.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sleboda is, far as I can tell, essentially drawling the line most of us do between

"These are clan rats they've got a weapon skill of 3" and " these are clan rats, yeah I'm probably not going  to do much more with them than tie up your powerful unit over there; that's what they do then my other units do the killing whilst you kill this one." 

 

Ergo its the line between information and tactical application of that information. Whilst remembering this is a competitive/random pickup game NOT a beginners game where you would certainly be giving more detailed thoughts and information to your opponent because in that context they are less your opponent and more your student. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So another case of arguing while agreeing to the same things.

I believe you should tell your opponent: So once per game at the start of the combat phase my Morrsar Guard can roll a die and each 3+ is a mortal wound.

You don’t have to tell him: So I’m going to fient on turn one at your heavy armor and then if I go bottom of turn two jump over them and murder the ****** out of your general so turn three you will think twice about attacking me if you win the rolloff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Overread said:

Sleboda is, far as I can tell, essentially drawling the line most of us do between

"These are clan rats they've got a weapon skill of 3" and " these are clan rats, yeah I'm probably not going  to do much more with them than tie up your powerful unit over there; that's what they do then my other units do the killing whilst you kill this one." 

 

Ergo its the line between information and tactical application of that information. Whilst remembering this is a competitive/random pickup game NOT a beginners game where you would certainly be giving more detailed thoughts and information to your opponent because in that context they are less your opponent and more your student. 

Sort of, but more.

I don't want to repeat the whole athlete thing, but I do want to point back to it here.

Mental adroitness is, at a bare minimum, useful. Studying the data, learning about all the armies before entering a tournament*, stringing all the bits of knowledge together in your mind, and so on takes effort. Those who do it, those who are better at it, will be more successful. Importantly, your mind will help you in ways you didn't anticipate. Putting in the effort to know your army and to know your opponent's army will lead to better decision making since you will intuitively 'connect the dots' without pausing to think about it.

Having more info is better.

Studying info had rewards.

Learning is a skill.

 

Going to a tournament and expecting to be gifted the reward without the effort while your opponent developed the needed skill over time is unreasonable.

 

* Tournament. Let's not lose sight of that. Not to suggest WAAC cheating. Nothing if the sort. Just keeping in mind what makes a tournament different from a get-together or a game at home. Participants at a tournament bring different skills in different degrees. I don't think it's right to give people temporary skills they don't actually have when they are competing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok so let’s parse the question a different way. @Sleboda 

If your opponent asks you about what something does in your army so you tell him or say. “You’ll see while we are playing.” 

I can get on certain tournament levels the skill should be high that explaining isn’t needed but more local tournaments (Metro area, lower state level) might not have as many high skill and people come just cause they want the experience of playing a lot of games all at once. Can’t expect everyone else to be like us and basically recall almost every detail especially newer battletomes like skaven.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh gosh no. I think I was clear. Answer their questions about facts.

First and foremost, I want to praise those who can indeed recall it all! I don't agree with folks who say that this is not a skill.

Second, sort of wishful thinking, it would be great if all people did know it all.

Third, there is a difference between "what's their save?" and "could you please go through all the protective capabilities you have across your army so that I can figure out what to shoot?"

My gf just pointed out a thing as well, based on the example about deepstriking, swapping, attack bonus.

Even if you simply tell your opponent all these things as facts, it really does help them glean your strategy. I mean, you took units with those rules for a reason, right, as opposed to other options you have?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think people are arguing about 2 different things here.  Yes, this is an “open information” game.  The rules say that in matched play you have to provide a copy of your army list to the opponent and the rules also state exactly what information that army list has to contain.  In addition, it is the responsibility of each player to have a copy of any rules their army uses and to provide them to the opponent upon request.

However, the rules do not require a player to hold a training session for their opponent prior to the game nor do they require you to thoroughly explain how the various abilities in an army interact or the strategies that armies generally employ.  You are required to provide a copy of the rules for your army upon request and if an opponent is unfamiliar with those rules then the onus is on them to ask to see those rules and review them when you exchange lists.  Or midgame if they ask to see a rule then you should provide it.

Understanding how enemy armies play is absolutely part of the preparation that people should do before a tournament if they are trying to win rather than simply participate.

As an example, if I am playing a Gloomspite army with a Loonboss, a bunch of grots, some sneaky snufflers,  the gobbapalooza, and both sporesplatta and loonsmasha fanatics then it is my responsibility to share those warscrolls with an opponent at the start of the game if they ask to see them.  It is not my responsibility to explain where the loonsmasha are hidden until the unit is revealed.  It is also not my responsibility to explain how most of those units can buff the stabbas and drastically increase their combat ability.  I am required to share all of those rules, but not how I may or will make use of them.  The impetus is on the opponent to either read the cards and interpret how I may use them or to prepare ahead of time and study how a Gloomspite army works in case they encounter one.

Simply put you share your rules but are in no way required to share your strategy and tactics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...