Opinion on Dirty Tricks

[entendre_entendre]

If you look on the internet for 40k articles, bounds are, you will come across some these "dirty tricks" (you may have different names for some of these). these tricks sometimes rely on questionable interpretations of some poorly written rule, while not right, they are not wrong either, as they rely on interpretation of the English language, which could go on for nearly forever. now without digressing into pointing fingers at anyone, or talking about the content of particular tricks, I am interested in what the community's opinions of "dirty tricks" are.

what kinds of opinions you ask? well, do you think that "dirty tricks" contribute positively to the 40k community?
Do they promote unsportsmanlike behaviour on the TT, or are they useful examples for teaching people to think outside the box?
why?
what is your experience with these "tricks"?

[Nabterayl]

Voting for middle because I think the real issue is discussing these things with your gaming group. If you discuss it up front and everybody agrees, then it ceases being a "dirty trick" and just becomes a house rule.

I don't believe in pulling rules out of a hat that you know are not universally agreed upon. I particularly don't believe in making plans in secret that rely on your opponent agreeing with you about a rule controversy you know (or have reason to suspect) exists in the middle of the game, when you spring your "clever trap." Tactics should be a surprise to your opponent; the rules of the game should not be.

[Lerra]

A lot of "dirty tricks" are clever ways of working within the rules. Those are fine. Ex: using the Callidus Assassin to move an enemy unit into a nice line for JotWW.

Dirty tricks that rely on a very suspect interpretation of the rules will usually earn you the stink eye.

[Aldramelech]

Games should be fun. This is paramount. If you pull questionable rules interpretations out of the hat to wrong foot your opponent an augment will inevitably ensue. Wheres the fun in that?

[krispy]

Games should be fun. This is paramount. If you pull questionable rules interpretations out of the hat to wrong foot your opponent an augment will inevitably ensue. Wheres the fun in that?

ditto for friendlies / fun games

unless of course the place was a tourney with RAW play then maybe it would fly - but there maybe people would already have taken it into consideration.

[Aldramelech]

And again I ask the question....... When were the words Fun and Tournament decided to be mutually exclusive?

[krispy]

they arent mutually exclusive - although i'd say it depends on the player - if i were to play in a tourney it would mainly be for fun so i wouldnt use any "dirty tricks".

i have played a couple of games with people who were very much "play to win" attitude - it wasnt fun for me - i took a beating repeatedly. I have never played in a tourney but i can imagine it would be fun until i get to meet someone like the guy i played before - with min / maxed lists and mathhammer done till their ears bled - if i was that guy with the "i have to win" attitude then im sure they would use similar "dirty" tricks and i would lose.

When i play my forces are normally the standard of of 2 troops and then whatever has taken my fancy, i win some i lose some but i always have fun, i havent fielded the same army twice in a long time, as it is i could field between 5 and 12 scout squads (5 x 10 man or 12 x 5 man) - just for fun to see what they can do - i think i will actually ;) that sounds like a plan!

fun for me = everything, even losing ;)
at the moment im finishing off my MoTF with magnets so i can have him with any loadout, i want to get some more bikes so i can try a big bike squad and once i have done that i think ill get my sternguards / vanguard veterans done to give them some play..... and i do need two more dreadnoughts before i can try the 6 dreadnought list i imagined... this hobby is all about fun - i just wish i had more time!

[Lord Azaghul]

if have to ask the question that you obviously shouldn't even be doing it. Keep the game fun, espeically in tournaments. Dirty Tricks have no place any where a 'game' is being played.

[Brass Scorpion]

A huge percentage of the so called "dirty tricks" I see most assuredly rely on highly questionable interpretations of the rules. As if there weren't enough ambiguities and misprints in the 40K rule books to cause legitimate rules questions between players, now we have people conjuring highly suspect interpretations of the rules. Killer combinations using clear, generally accepted interpretations are just fine by me, that's just having a bit of fun with the possibilities presented.

However, no good can come of looking for ways to twist and bend the words outside of normal expectations, especially if you're playing with people you don't know that well. If your interpretation of the rules is so far out of the usual readings that your opponents regularly look at you like you're crazy or feel the need to question what you are trying to do, maybe you should think twice about such behavior, especially if you want people to continue to play games with you. If you have to cook up long, verbose explanations as to why your interpretation is correct even though virtually no other players have ever thought of it and then present that lengthy argument every time you try and pull your little rules trick, perhaps what you are doing is neither fair, legitimate or fun for anyone else concerned.

[B_Steele]

When were the words Fun and Tournament decided to be mutually exclusive?

Quoted for truth.

[Aldramelech]

A huge percentage of the so called "dirty tricks" I see most assuredly rely on highly questionable interpretations of the rules. As if there weren't enough ambiguities and misprints in the 40K rule books to cause legitimate rules questions between players, now we have people conjuring highly suspect interpretations of the rules. Killer combinations using clear, generally accepted interpretations are just fine by me, that's just having a bit of fun with the possibilities presented.

However, no good can come of looking for ways to twist and bend the words outside of normal expectations, especially if you're playing with people you don't know that well. If your interpretation of the rules is so far out of the usual readings that your opponents regularly look at you like you're crazy or feel the need to question what you are trying to do, maybe you should think twice about such behavior, especially if you want people to continue to play games with you. If you have to cook up long, verbose explanations as to why your interpretation is correct even though virtually no other players have ever thought of it and then present that lengthy argument every time you try and pull your little rules trick, perhaps what you are doing is neither fair, legitimate or fun for anyone else concerned.

100% agreement

[entendre_entendre]

my opinion on the matter is that as long as there is solid evidence of the "trick", then i'd be okay with it, but when it relies on dissecting a sentence word by word, then it ceases to be a tactic (usually what these are found under) and becomes an exploitation. if one builds an army with the sole purpose of exploiting the rules, then they cease to play the game on start to play the rules, which we can all agree is no fun.

which brings me to another point:
Occasionally, when someone posts one of these "dirty tricks", do you find it ironic that they go on to say (possibly at a later time) that they would never use them at all? WTH?

in my mind, it's like there's a bunch of people with guns, but no ammo. then someone throwing bullets out into the crowd, but then going on to say "don't shoot each other!" seems silly (at least to me).

it's more an ignorance vs. knowledge thing, is it better for the masses not to know that it exists (with the possible exception of a few) and limit its possible use, or is it better for the masses to know exactly how to use the "trick", thus creating a potential increase of the frequency of its use, but generating possible counters to its use (through discussion)?

[Aldramelech]

I know what you mean. Ive seen several like this. "Ive figured out you can do this!, is this okay? Id never use it"
To which my response is "Why ask then?". The only possible excuse is to educate people so they know how to deal/argue against what ever it is.

Id like to think the majority are doing just that :eek:

[warpcrafter]

Ruleslawyeritis is easily cured by Punchtothefacillin. If you want to be a WAAC type, you should have gotten better at sports when you were a kid.

[entendre_entendre]

Ruleslawyeritis is easily cured by Punchtothefacillin.

if only it was that simple. unfortunately, punchtithefacillin leads to the side effect of assaultchargnosis, which ends up in jailltimol. and you don't want jailtimol if the zombies break out. :/

@ Aldramelech: sometimes i think they just say that to cover up the fact that they don't want to be black-listed as a power-gaming deuce by teh internets.

[The Green Git]

Killer Combos are different than Dirty Tricks.

Using a Ork Nob Biker Squad with wound allocation due to wargear differences is a Killer Combo.

Saying you can salvage the squad that was in the Rhino you just had wacked by the 30 Ork Boys surrounding it by "deploying" within 2" of the Rhino by somersaulting over the Orks heads and landing a sliver of the base within the 2" is a Dirty Trick.

Generally, if the entire crux of your argument hinges on one word and the semantics therein ("It's not Movement, It's Deployment. The rule about not moving through bases doesn't apply.") then it's a Dirty Trick.

[Old_Paladin]

I have to say that I personally don't believe that "dirty tricks" exist.
It's either fair, but very clever; or it is simply cheating

[BuFFo]

And again I ask the question....... When were the words Fun and Tournament decided to be mutually exclusive?

All Tourneys are WAAC whether light hearted players admit it or not....

Anyone who has been to a handful of Tourneys understands this truth. Thats why its called a tourney. Thats what one is, a competition to see who wins the event.

And save me the 'I've been to tourneys were no one cared about winning, and everyone got the same prize as the top player' bs.

There is no such thing as dirty tricks. You are either playing by the rules, or not. Dirty tricks is just a term used by players who don't know any better and are looking for a scapegoat.

Don't mix dirty tricks and cheating. One has nothing to do with the other.

[DarkLink]

And save me the 'I've been to tourneys were no one cared about winning, and everyone got the same prize as the top player' bs.

It's like communism, but for prizes!



There is no such thing as dirty tricks. You are either playing by the rules, or not. Dirty tricks is just a term used by players who don't know any better and are looking for a scapegoat.

Don't mix dirty tricks and cheating. One has nothing to do with the other.

Fully agree. There's cheating, and then there's playing to win. Competitive players play to win, while cheaters, well, cheat.

Cheating = bad.

Competitive = perfectly fine

"Dirty Tricks" are just a term used to imply that for some reason, being competitive isn't acceptable.

[Aldramelech]

All Tourneys are WAAC whether light hearted players admit it or not....

Anyone who has been to a handful of Tourneys understands this truth. Thats why its called a tourney. Thats what one is, a competition to see who wins the event.

And save me the 'I've been to tourneys were no one cared about winning, and everyone got the same prize as the top player' bs.

There is no such thing as dirty tricks. You are either playing by the rules, or not. Dirty tricks is just a term used by players who don't know any better and are looking for a scapegoat.

Don't mix dirty tricks and cheating. One has nothing to do with the other.

So when you take part in a tournament, your not having any fun whatsoever? No enjoyment is being had at all? You are a soulless winning machine with one goal in mind? You don't enjoy meeting new people and chatting to old friends? There is no anticipation the night before? You arnt looking forward to a spot of bargain hunting and haven't saved your hard earned dollars for the last month? You don't feel elated/crushed when you win/loose a round? You cant be reasoned with, you cant be bargained with, and you absolutely will not stop............... (sorry, turned into Micheal Biehn for a moment)

If its not fun, then why the hell would you do it???????????????????????????????????????????????? ???

You are playing a game of Sci Fi toy soldiers, Don't give me all this "We're serious about this" crap, thats the real BS.:rolleyes:

[Aldramelech]

It's like communism, but for prizes!



Fully agree. There's cheating, and then there's playing to win. Competitive players play to win, while cheaters, well, cheat.

Cheating = bad.

Competitive = perfectly fine

"Dirty Tricks" are just a term used to imply that for some reason, being competitive isn't acceptable.

And I believe that is the excuse "Competitive" gamers use to justify using said Dirty Tricks.

[Jay Biga]

I guess your opinion depends on how and why you play the game. Personally, I'm a modeller first and a gamer second. I enjoy building and painting models and armies more than I like playing the game. The game is an excuse to model.
I'm also a fluff-a-holic. The fluff gives me inspiration on how I want my models to look. If I'm painting a tank, I think of reasons why it would have the colours it has and even the markings have a system to them.

That said, it's not like I never play. I play regularly, I have an independant store within 5 minutes of my house and a GW store within 10. So plenty of opportunity to get a game in.
I am however quite picky about who I play. If in regular conversation I already lose interest in talking to you, you can bet your boots to a barn dance that the chances of you and I playing each other are slim at best.
I don't mind losing. There's a guy that I keep losing to, but I love playing him, because we have loads of fun doing it. So my main motivation is just having fun with friends. It's an excuse to get together and just kick it. If we don't agree on an interpretation of a rule, we all tend to give the other guy his way.

Then there is the power gamer, he gets all his joy from playing, often doesn't have a painted army and gets all excited about winning. He's very competitive and loves besting others. Why he is that way, I don't know, I can't look in somebody else's head.

The difference between these two players is the letter of the law and the spirit of the law.
One isn't better than the other, they're just different. They don't need to be mutually exclusive, but the extremes of both tend to be.

Always keep in mind that the game is about fun. So pick and play people that you think are fun to play. So if you find joy in playing people that study the rules to the nth degree and always try to come up with ways of outsmarting these guys, even if some people think your ways are devious, I can understand that. And more power to you.
If you find joy in just having fun with some friends and aren't picky about the rules, more power to you as well!

Obviously, the above is speaking in generalisations. Plenty of people fall in between these categories. One guy I play has an army to play friends with (fluff based) and an army for tournaments (cheese based). I guess the main thing to take away from this is just have fun. Both you and your opponent.

[Vince]

The majority of the games I play are tourney games. In the tourneys I play in very few people try to use what some call "dirty tricks" (seems more like Permissive rules interpretation used solely to gain a advantage based on bad Game Workshop wording on loosely written rules) and when they do you just call a judge. Honestly it seems most of you guys that play in this crazy tourneys where players attempt to rule lawyer their way to a victory just have bad judges. If the store you play at doesn't have a FAQ and a judge for tourneys then I feel sorry for you. It would be no fun to argue with some one though out a game as they try to tell you what is "is".

[Duke]

This is a perfect topic for something that was recently brought to my attention:

I recently played defender in a planetstrike mission. Because I was able to depoly all the terrain I made a turtle formation in the corner and lined it with aegis defensive lines... Not only that but everysquare inch of my turtle was covered in terrain (I did this because I had seen drop pods and the like ruin defeders). I placed no other terrain on the table. After the game I was roasted a little bit for my terrain selection as being too ultra-competitive.

Was what I did a dirty-trick? or was it simply within the rules.

Duke

P.S.- All in all it was a bad idea because i could only deny one table edge and my 'base,' took up two. As such my opponent could have simply waked in, lol

[Melissia]

Since we're talking about using "obscure" interpretations... I hate people who use houserules to limit what I can do with my armies. Like people who say that I can't use the allies/inductions rules.

The **** I can't you whiny little ****. Those units are very clearly listed in both my Codex and FAQ, so if I wanna use them, I'm damned well going to, or you're going to have to find someone else to play against. The FAQ also says I can use IG special characters, and even though I don't normally do that it's a part of my options-- to hell with your interpretations.

[Duke]

Whoa easy there... Sounds like we hit a nerve.

Seriously though I know what you mean. We are playing a campaign that has its first few games as planetstrike and someone told me that I should be limited in how many chainfists I could have because "it is too easy to pop the Bastions." ... So ****ing what!? isn't that the point? blow the bastions to hell! I suppose we should limit Firedragons too eh? sometimes people need to be socked in the gut.

(Great, now I need to chill, thanks M)

Duke

[Lerra]

The problem with "dirty tricks" is that everyone has their own definition of what they are. To some people, it's bringing more than one chainfist to a Planetstrike game, or running more than 4 meltaguns in a list. To others, it's cheating and other disreputable behavior.

Most people get cheesed off when their opponent calls them on a "dirty trick", especially if the trick is legitimate and the opponent is just being a sore loser. I have seen people call dirty tricks on bringing allies too, and it annoys me. Some tournaments around here ban allies 0_0. I have also seen people call me on "dirty tricks" for running Deathwing and using Deathwing Assault. "Pssh that's cheesy. You get terminators as troops AND they can deep strike on the first turn? You are running an outdated codex just to make your terminators better!" . . .

My favorite "dirty trick" that I get some flak for is running Ravenwing Bikes with Multi-Melta/Meltaguns alongside a Vindicator. Step One: Pop open the tank. Step Two: Blast the occupants away with a demolisher cannon. Step Three: Assault any survivors with the bikes. It is fun to do but tends to aggravate people.

[DarkLink]

And I believe that is the excuse "Competitive" gamers use to justify using said Dirty Tricks.

Yeah, well, I'm a competitive gamer. If you've got a problem with that, tough. I play to win, because I enjoy the challenge in trying to beat a skilled opponent. "Dirty tricks" are perfectly legal. If they aren't then they're not "dirty tricks", they're cheating.


I also fully agree with Melissia. It always irritates me when I see someone talking about how their tournament only allows 1 HQ, 2 Elite, FA and Heavy slots, and none of those units can be duplicates.

[Duke]

I agree 100% Dark Link... I may get irritated when I have a dirty trick played on me, but Im not about to ban them... I just may not play that person again if its that bad.

Lets look at a dirty trick

Dirty: I played a game where I asked my opponent what strategem he chose. He told me what it was, then after I told him that my army list would ignore that strategem completly he changed the strategem... His reasoning was "If I had seen your list I would have not picked the strategem." True, but my list was on the table and he never asked to see it (not like it was hiding). In the end I let him change it, and I still won the game.

Not Dirty: In the same game the player changed his first strategem and had chosen his new strategem to be night fight for the first turn and had also taken night shields on his DE transports. So, I had to roll night fight (2d6 x 3 ) and then subtract 6" from my roll. Even if I rolled 12's I could only see 30"!!! It was infuriating!!! I couldn't shoot anything because on average I could only see 15". He was smart in his dirty trick, and I must say that I wouldn't force him to not choose it again.... However, next time he doesn't get to re-choose his stratagem.

Anyhow, my two cents.

Duke

[Melissia]

Duke: I am always glad to spread the Holy Hatred to new converts.

[mkerr]

I think I'm the only blogger that uses the term "dirty tricks" in his articles, so I'm going to assume these comments are meant for me.


Occasionally, when someone posts one of these "dirty tricks", do you find it ironic that they go on to say (possibly at a later time) that they would never use them at all? WTH?

Here's my answer to that comment:

1) I call them "dirty tricks" because they aren't usually much fun for either player and because they often don't "seem" fair. Although they are legal, but abusive tactics -- you would feel ambushed if you encountered them without any advance warning. Originally I thought about going with the term "power combo", but found that "dirty trick" felt like a better term.

2) No, I don't use "dirty tricks" when I play. I build some crazy tough lists for "hard" tournaments (like 'Ard Boyz and the Adepticon Gladiator), but I don't like springing traps on my opponent. Call me crazy, but even when I am playing to win I still want my opponent to have fun -- and being "tricked" isn't fun.

3) So why write the articles? For a couple of reasons. First, I'm not the only guy around that can come up with creative combinations of rules (but instead of springing them on other players, I choose to share them with everyone). So there are already tons of "dirty tricks" out there. And for every "dirty trick" I write about there are a dozen of "dirty tricks" that I haven't discovered.

Secondly, I feel that it's better to encounter these dirty tricks for the first time on a blog than in a tournament that you paid to enter. As my GI Joe friends say, "knowledge is half the battle". If you are knowledgeable about what kind of tactics you might encounter, then you will be better prepared for them.

Finally, my ultimate goal is to encourage players to think creatively about the rules, their army and their opponent's armies.


in my mind, it's like there's a bunch of people with guns, but no ammo. then someone throwing bullets out into the crowd, but then going on to say "don't shoot each other!" seems silly (at least to me).

I accept that 1% of my readers will scoop out the "dirty tricks" and immediately spring them on their opponents. But the other 99% won't -- and that 99% are better prepared for a similar "dirty trick" when they encounter it. So for every guy that pulls a "dirty trick" there are 99 guys that will see it coming -- that seems pretty good to me.


it's more an ignorance vs. knowledge thing, is it better for the masses not to know that it exists (with the possible exception of a few) and limit its possible use, or is it better for the masses to know exactly how to use the "trick", thus creating a potential increase of the frequency of its use, but generating possible counters to its use (through discussion)?

That's an interesting question. I believe that a well-informed player is going to have more fun than a poorly informed player, but that's just my opinion.

[Bean]

I don't think that anything which is legal can really be classified as a "dirty trick." Every 40k player has a responsibility to him or herself as well as his or her opponent to know the rules thoroughly, and if you know the rules thoroughly, you won't be tricked by anything which is legal. Thus, if you're tricked, you have only yourself--and your abdication of your own responsibility to know the rules thoroughly--to blame for it. Calling something a "dirty trick" is just an illegitimate attempt to shift blame for one's own failure onto one's opponent.

If it's legal, you should be prepared for it and anticipate it in situations where it could legally happen. If you know all the rules, you will never be tricked. If you are tricked by something legal, you have only yourself to blame, whether the trick is "dirty" or not. It's that simple.

[gorepants]

I don't think that anything which is legal can really be classified as a "dirty trick." Every 40k player has a responsibility to him or herself as well as his or her opponent to know the rules thoroughly, and if you know the rules thoroughly, you won't be tricked by anything which is legal. Thus, if you're tricked, you have only yourself--and your abdication of your own responsibility to know the rules thoroughly--to blame for it. Calling something a "dirty trick" is just an illegitimate attempt to shift blame for one's own failure onto one's opponent.

If it's legal, you should be prepared for it and anticipate it in situations where it could legally happen. If you know all the rules, you will never be tricked. If you are tricked by something legal, you have only yourself to blame, whether the trick is "dirty" or not. It's that simple.

Sorry Bean, I'm going to have to call BS on you (and everyone else with this position since you're not the only one). There is a reason they are called dirty tricks, and that's because they are dirty tricks. There are of course entirely legitimate but obscure rules that if you know them make perfect sense and have single literal interpretation. But these aren't dirty tricks. Dirty tricks are the bending (not breaking) of the rules.

A key difference is highlighted by your claim that everyone should know all the rules. I would define a dirty trick being some rule or combination of rules that you can't readily and unambiguously explain to a person of average intelligence with the rule book in front of them and them agreeing with you. it shouldn't require both parties to know all the rules. There are several problems requiring knowledge of all the rule. You have to read and memorise every rule book codex and supplement. That's not going to happen. Most people don't have the time, it excludes new players and people like my self who have short term memory problems - I can't learn the rules without playing them. Also saying you won't get tricked just by knowing them is a fallacy, the collapse of several major investment funds is a perfect example of the human inability to make simple rule based judgements (and we all make mistakes all the time). And memorising the rules doesn't stop them being badly written. GW are people, and bad copy gets through (the flying thunder hammer and psychic power in the Space Wolf codex are perfect examples of bad writing). So even if you know them, sometimes the rules are perfectly ambiguous.

So at this point in my thesis you have well written rules, the margins and cheating. Well written rules and cheating speak for themselves, so it is the margins we must be talking about. The true interpretation to these are by definition unknowable (since once known, they become well written rules). This begs the question, why did you pick your interpretation? Do you always pick the most advantageous interpretation? If you are trying to stiff your opponent and make your army better, then maybe you should think about your motivations for playing the game. This is not the same as playing hard and smart to win. In cricket (don't particularly like the game, but a good example), the umpire errs on the side of the batter in making decisions. International cricket is incredibly competitive, but this is done to make for a better game and the bowlers are still trying to get the batters out. I think in wargaming you should err on the side of you opponent. If you both do this it evens out and makes for a better game - competitive but still friendly. You can win without being a jerk about it. If you want you can go the other way, but I think you should probably start off agreeing to this (hell, it's only a game, you can do what you want in private!). But I'd call trying to slip something by you opponent or otherwise brow beat him (or her) to your point of view a dirty trick. Interestingly GW put an explicit rule to cover this type of dispute - if you don't agree roll a die and pick the interpretation.

OK, longer than I expected. </rant>

[BuFFo]

So when you take part in a tournament, your not having any fun whatsoever?

If Sportsmanship scores are in effect, then yes, I smile and ACT like I am having fun, but, the entire time I am just trying to be the perfect opponent for my opponent, so when I crush him into the ground, he won't 'chipmunk' me and give me a low sportsmanship score just because he lost.


No enjoyment is being had at all?

The only enjoyment I am having is the satisfaction that I got paired up with a guy who decided to take his Tau to the tournament.


You are a soulless winning machine with one goal in mind?

Actually, yes. I spent the 80 - 150 dollar entry fee, the 200 bucks in airfare, the 400 bucks in a hotel room, and god knows how much in food to WIN. The end.


You don't enjoy meeting new people and chatting to old friends?

Not at a tournament. If I wanted to enjoy meeting people, I would go to my local gaming store where I hang out with people I love and enjoy. At a tournament, the collection of molecules across the table from me is only a sugary water sack standing in my way of winning first place.


There is no anticipation the night before?

No. My Dark Eldar fear no army. I AM the army people stay up late at night , anticipating and wishing they won't face.


You arnt looking forward to a spot of bargain hunting and haven't saved your hard earned dollars for the last month?

Bargain? Its called eBay / Internet. You'll figure out how it works one day :)


You don't feel elated/crushed when you win/loose a round?

I only feel one thing.

Sorrow... Because that must be how my opponent feels after I wipe them off the table by turn 3, and they will spend the next 3 hours before the next round sitting at the local McDonalds, crying into a 1300 calorie burger as to why they wasted money on Dark Angels.

Sorrow... Knowing that no matter who sits across the table from me at a tournament, my games will be the same one sided, boring crush victories as always... never ending win streak that never brings me any joy or happiness.


You cant be reasoned with, you cant be bargained with, and you absolutely will not stop...............

Oh you can bargain with me... Pay me cash before a match so I crush you on turn 4 instead of turn 3 so you don't look like an idiot in front of you mom as she watches the game over your shoulder, wondering why she wasted 900 bucks on plastic men her idiot son is just removing off the table.


(sorry, turned into Micheal Bean for a moment)

I don't know who he is, but he sounds like an energy source. My batteries need recharging. Where can I find this 'bean' so that i can assimilate him into my neural net, granting me another few days of ongoing energy.


If its not fun, then why the hell would you do it???????????????????????????????????????????????? ???

To win. The end.


You are playing a game of Sci Fi toy soldiers, Don't give me all this "We're serious about this" crap, thats the real BS.:rolleyes:

Wrong. If I was at my local store and I was farting around for a few hours, then I would agree with you. But when you travel the country, drop mad cash, and seek the first place prize, then its all about the win.

- edit -

Roughly 0% - 100% of this post is sarcasm. If I was among adults, I wouldn't have to post this, but I am sure some tool will start a fight with me over my wordage.

I am a cyborg sent from the future to play warhammer 40k.

[Melissia]

There is a reason they are called dirty tricks, and that's because they are dirty tricks.
Utterly moronic tautologies make me want to stab faces. Please do not make me want to stab faces. What YOU declare to be a dirty trick is just another part of the game to someone else. Your word is neither law nor the wisdom of the ancient kings nor the word of god. And before you (inevitably) get defensive: I do not dispute (or, quite honestly, care) whether you are right or wrong; I am objecting to the FORM of your argument, not the substance.

[BuFFo]

Utterly moronic tautologies make me want to stab faces. Please do not make me want to stab faces. What YOU declare to be a dirty trick is just another part of the game to someone else. Your word is neither law nor the wisdom of the ancient kings nor the word of god. And before you (inevitably) get defensive: I do not dispute (or, quite honestly, care) whether you are right or wrong; I am objecting to the FORM of your argument, not the substance.

They are still dirty tricks..... :D

[gorepants]

Utterly moronic tautologies make me want to stab faces. Please do not make me want to stab faces. What YOU declare to be a dirty trick is just another part of the game to someone else. Your word is neither law nor the wisdom of the ancient kings nor the word of god. And before you (inevitably) get defensive: I do not dispute (or, quite honestly, care) whether you are right or wrong; I am objecting to the FORM of your argument, not the substance.

Fair call - the statement was meant to be glib and is entirely ineffectual as an argument. That's as much defence of that as you'll get from me on that.

Your response does raise another valid point though - that from the outset we have not had a definition of what a dirty trick is. I do hope the rest of my argument was less objectionable though. For my given definition of what a dirty trick is I believe to be valid, though it does rely on an a particular ethical standpoint on sportsmanship (ie mine) and others will disagree with me.

Dirty trick is an emotive phrase that obviously (from reading the posts here) holds a different meaning to different people (and simple change in intonation when spoken can change the meaning from roguish to downright unpleasant). So a better a questions might be, what actions involving the grey areas of the rules do we consider good or bad? I think I've fairly clearly laid out what I believe to be the grey area and its constituents and how it should be dealt with but others will no doubt disagree.

Edit: I realise now my sentence should have been

'There is a reason they are called dirty tricks, and that's because they are dirty tricks (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/dirty+trick).'

That makes a lot more rhetorical sense.

[Bean]

Sorry Bean, I'm going to have to call BS on you (and everyone else with this position since you're not the only one). There is a reason they are called dirty tricks, and that's because they are dirty tricks. There are of course entirely legitimate but obscure rules that if you know them make perfect sense and have single literal interpretation. But these aren't dirty tricks. Dirty tricks are the bending (not breaking) of the rules.

Rules can't be bent, they can only be followed or broken. That's just the nature of rules. When people talk about 'bending' the rules, they're either talking about following them, but still managing to do something that some people wish the rules would prevent, or breaking them, but in a way that they think is justified. Either way, the rules are either being followed or broken. To list bending as a category on the same level as but separate from following or breaking is disingenuous.



A key difference is highlighted by your claim that everyone should know all the rules. I would define a dirty trick being some rule or combination of rules that you can't readily and unambiguously explain to a person of average intelligence with the rule book in front of them and them agreeing with you. it shouldn't require both parties to know all the rules. There are several problems requiring knowledge of all the rule. You have to read and memorise every rule book codex and supplement. That's not going to happen. Most people don't have the time, it excludes new players and people like my self who have short term memory problems - I can't learn the rules without playing them. Also saying you won't get tricked just by knowing them is a fallacy, the collapse of several major investment funds is a perfect example of the human inability to make simple rule based judgements (and we all make mistakes all the time). And memorising the rules doesn't stop them being badly written. GW are people, and bad copy gets through (the flying thunder hammer and psychic power in the Space Wolf codex are perfect examples of bad writing). So even if you know them, sometimes the rules are perfectly ambiguous.


Adding, as a requirement, that a reasonably intelligent person always agree with your interpretation once you've explained to to him or her makes all actions potential dirty tricks, as you put it. A person, however intelligent, can disagree with just about anything for just about any reason--or even no discernible reason at all. I've tried to explain rules to plenty of presumably intelligent people, with the rulebook, and gotten disagreement from them for reasons no better than, "I don't think it ought to be that way."

No, the 'explain it to your opponent' test can't be used to define dirty tricks, if we are to have dirty tricks at all. Such a definition would leave the contents of the category entirely inconclusive--in which case the category might as well not exist.

Further, a thorough knowledge of the rules does prevent you from being tricked. Alluding to investment failures is obviously disingenuous--no economist would claim to actually know all of the factors which impact the future market. No economist would claim to know all of the "rules" of investment. Financial investment is not analogous to 40k at all, and your suggestion that this analogy somehow shows my position to be a fallacy is, frankly, laughable.

Finally, there are occasions where the rules are actually ambiguous, it's true. Even so, thorough knowledge of the rules can prepare you even for ambiguous situations. After all, if you know the rules thoroughly, then you know which ones are ambiguous, or you can discern when an ambiguous situation might arise and attempt to resolve the rules with your opponent ahead of time. Even if your opponent interprets an ambiguous rule to his or her own advantage, you have no one but yourself to blame for not seeing it coming and bringing it up ahead of time.

And, of course, if the rule really is ambiguous, you might even pause the game at the point at which it comes into play and work out with your opponent how you two will play it--and make sure you don't hold an opponent to a decision he made under the impression that a particular ambiguous rule would be played a different way, just as you wouldn't necessarily want to be held to playing it that way.

Either way, though, it can't be called a dirty trick. It's not particularly dirty for an opponent to choose, in the absence of input from you, a particular interpretation or a rule and play it that way unless you object, and there certainly isn't any trickery involved. If an ambiguous rule comes up, it will need to be resolved one way or another. If it is brought up by one player's actions, there's nothing dirty or tricky about that, even if that player is inclined to interpret the rule to his or her advantage.





So at this point in my thesis you have well written rules, the margins and cheating. Well written rules and cheating speak for themselves, so it is the margins we must be talking about. The true interpretation to these are by definition unknowable (since once known, they become well written rules). This begs the question, why did you pick your interpretation? Do you always pick the most advantageous interpretation? If you are trying to stiff your opponent and make your army better, then maybe you should think about your motivations for playing the game. This is not the same as playing hard and smart to win. In cricket (don't particularly like the game, but a good example), the umpire errs on the side of the batter in making decisions. International cricket is incredibly competitive, but this is done to make for a better game and the bowlers are still trying to get the batters out. I think in wargaming you should err on the side of you opponent. If you both do this it evens out and makes for a better game - competitive but still friendly. You can win without being a jerk about it. If you want you can go the other way, but I think you should probably start off agreeing to this (hell, it's only a game, you can do what you want in private!). But I'd call trying to slip something by you opponent or otherwise brow beat him (or her) to your point of view a dirty trick. Interestingly GW put an explicit rule to cover this type of dispute - if you don't agree roll a die and pick the interpretation.

OK, longer than I expected. </rant>

The 'margins' category might exist in your thesis, but it doesn't really bear on the matter at hand. Even in the marginal areas, there isn't room for dirty tricks to actually exist. If you feel you have been tricked, whether it involves an ambiguous rule or not, you have only yourself to blame.


edit:
As a side note, I didn't say that memorizing all the rules was easy, only that it is something towards which players should aspire, and that your failure to know the rules isn't your opponent's fault. If you know all the rules and take the time to analyze the game each turn, you'll never be surprised or tricked by your opponent. If you are tricked or surprised, you have only yourself and your ignorance or lack of diligence to blame. This remains true even if most players are, in fact, ignorant of portions of the rules or lax in their analysis of the game.

[entendre_entendre]

@ mkerr: i didn't realize that you solely had the trademark on "dirty tricks" :p (as i had actually seen them printed in WD at some point, so wrongly assumed others on the net did the same, but i admit, your tactics did spark this thread). when i use the term "dirty tricks" for me it's more like questionable application of English. what i mean is: using a particular word (usually an ambiguous one like a, any, all, etc. in a certain place) to say something that a particular rule does something that the other player didn't know due to a difference in the reading of the rule. they are not explicitly cheating, and both parties know the rules equally well, but what one is saying is questionable or more open for interpretation/explanation than the "regular" ruling. also, one should not need to have an English and/or Law degree to explain what they mean by their interpretation of said rule.

(don't think i'm hating on all "dirty tricks" though, i read the callidus tricks and found them to be acceptable interpretations of the rules, so if i voted above, i'd be in the middle)

posting underhanded tactics does have the benefit of discussion, which is always good for everyone involved, and being informed is always nice. as long as one realizes any potential consequences of the action, then do as you see fit.

@ others claiming this to be fair*: just b/c it's "legal" doesn't mean it's okay to use. if it's legal, then it's fine, but when it's "legal" (ie. as gorepants so eloquently put it, in the margins), that's when there's an issue (something about a "social contract" or some BS like that...). if i am on the receiving end of a dirty trick, i should be able to read to rule they used and quickly understand their side w/o the need of an explanation. period. :eek: if i get it, then there's no issue, continue as normal. any other interpretation is bending the rules to fit one's own ends, and i'm not okay with that. (besides, what's the point of explaining something for 20 minutes in a timed game anyways?)

*all fair's in love and war right? right, but this isn't real war. it's pretend war. if it's love, please don't tell me what you do in your spare time, i don't want to know...

begin the hate. i know you want to...

edit: some seem to think that if one doesn't know every rule, then it's okay to punish them for it. nice. if one doesn't know the core rulebook, that's one thing, but when doesn't know what your army/army rules does that's another. are you really going to say it's their fault b/c they didn't know what a (insert codex-specific item here) does? does this make sense? is your opponent supposed to know your army as well as their own? as an opponent, if you don't expect at least some ignorance on the other person's part, then you don't get out often much do you? (/possibly [un]intentional trolling)

[Bean]

@ others claiming this to be fair*: just b/c it's "legal" doesn't mean it's okay to use. if it's legal, then it's fine, but when it's "legal" (ie. as gorepants so eloquently put it, in the margins), that's when there's an issue (something about a "social contract" or some BS like that...). if i am on the receiving end of a dirty trick, i should be able to read to rule they used and quickly understand their side w/o the need of an explanation. period. if i get it, then there's no issue, continue as normal. any other interpretation is bending the rules to fit one's own ends, and i'm not okay with that. (besides, what's the point of explaining something for 20 minutes in a timed game anyways?)

Really?

Any interpretation you don't get is an instance where someone has bent the rules to his or her advantage?

If the margins are ambiguous situations, as Gorepants suggests, then one interpretation of a 'marginal' rule is just as legitimate as the other. If I, for example, toss my Arjak's Thunder Hammer at your Wraithlord, anticipating that its initiative will be dropped to 1, making it, in turn, easy prey for my Jaws of the World Wolf and you object, read the rule, and don't immediately understand or accept my interpretation, who's really playing the dirty trick? Is it me for trying to gain an advantage through my interpretation, or is it you trying to gain an advantage through yours? After all, interpreting the rule to disallow the reduction in initiative would clearly be to your advantage in comparison to the alternative.

My point is that when you start saying that interpretations are less legitimate when they're to one player's advantage or another, you've pretty much ruined your own argument. Every interpretation is going to be one player's advantage or another. So what if I interpret an ambiguous rule to my advantage? Is that any more a 'dirty trick' than you interpreting it to yours? In the end, you can't call either a dirty trick. A responsible player wouldn't be surprised or tricked by the occurrence of an ambiguous situation, and a reasonable one would never apply a moral judgement like 'dirty' to the action which caused that occurrence. Ambiguous situations arise because the rules aren't well written--not, generally, because either player is trying to "take advantage" of them. And, if one player is trying to take advantage of an ambiguous rule and an opponent objects, the opponent is doing the exact same thing--trying to gain advantage through a particular interpretation of an ambiguous rule.

Only an utter hypocrite could object to something by calling it a 'dirty trick' if 'dirty tricks' are said to arise from ambiguous rules.

Of course, only a jerk could object to something by calling it a 'dirty trick' if it was supported by an unambiguous rule.

And, of course, no-one here is talking about actual cheating.

So, I guess you could call something a dirty trick, but only if you were willing to label yourself a hypocrite.

[entendre_entendre]

Really?

Any interpretation you don't get is an instance where someone has bent the rules to his or her advantage?

hmmm... probably not the best way for me to phrase it (to err is human after all). what i meant by that was to see if i misread the intention of the rule, to see if i was at fault. e.g. say an "any" could be interpreted in 2 ways, if one could easily explain what they thought they meant, i would side with them, as they have a different reasoning of said rule than i. if i don't get something, it doesn't mean they're trying to exploit things necessarily. it just means i need dome help understanding something potentially confusing. it's a combination of common sense and a sense of fair play (what's that you ask? i dunno) that determines the outcome. i also if it takes 20 minutes to explain something, it's not a good explanation (i'm an everyman, so what? wanna fight about it?). besides, it's more a case by case basis for me, as i've also got 3 editions of rules (some have more) running around in the noggin, so when you can sort out vast amounts of information all the time with no problem and summon any necessary info when you need it, (do you have a cartesian mind?) let me know (unless you're saying you're super human in some respect, then you've probably got better things to do than letting a mere mortal know you're super-human).


So, I guess you could call something a dirty trick, but only if you were willing to label yourself a hypocrite.

umm... basically everyone's a hypocrite. every double standard is hypocrisy. if one has no double standards of any kind, and one has never said anything opinion-based in contradiction and without retraction, then one is not a hypocrite. so yes, i'm a hypocrite, along with everyone else. to quote Revenge of the Nerds:

"there's a lot more of us then there are of you."

[gorepants]

Adding, as a requirement, that a reasonably intelligent person always agree with your interpretation once you've explained to to him or her makes all actions potential dirty tricks, as you put it. A person, however intelligent, can disagree with just about anything for just about any reason--or even no discernible reason at all. I've tried to explain rules to plenty of presumably intelligent people, with the rulebook, and gotten disagreement from them for reasons no better than, "I don't think it ought to be that way."

Here the 'I don't like it' vs the 'I think you're interpretation is incorrect' should be separated. You are correct, not like liking it is not a valid argument against an unambiguous rule. As to explaining it to a single person, I have wrongly referred to a population distribution as a person. My stance is better stated that if a rule can be understood with a single interpretation by a sufficiently large proportion of gamers without resort to simply not liking it, then it is well written and unambiguous and if you agree you are correctly interpreting it. This is by no means a perfect definition (especially as I have not given the margins for 'sufficiently large'), but I think it still holds some water.


Further, a thorough knowledge of the rules does prevent you from being tricked. Alluding to investment failures is obviously disingenuous--no economist would claim to actually know all of the factors which impact the future market. No economist would claim to know all of the "rules" of investment. Financial investment is not analogous to 40k at all, and your suggestion that this analogy somehow shows my position to be a fallacy is, frankly, laughable.

Actually the root cause of the GFC was investment bankers (at large scale) ignoring a two simple rules of lending - do not give out bad loans and do not buy other peoples bad loans. I believe on this basis my analogy holds water.


Finally, there are occasions where the rules are actually ambiguous, it's true. Even so, thorough knowledge of the rules can prepare you even for ambiguous situations. After all, if you know the rules thoroughly, then you know which ones are ambiguous, or you can discern when an ambiguous situation might arise and attempt to resolve the rules with your opponent ahead of time. Even if your opponent interprets an ambiguous rule to his or her own advantage, you have no one but yourself to blame for not seeing it coming and bringing it up ahead of time.

Either way, though, it can't be called a dirty trick. It's not particularly dirty for an opponent to choose, in the absence of input from you, a particular interpretation or a rule and play it that way unless you object, and there certainly isn't any trickery involved. If an ambiguous rule comes up, it will need to be resolved one way or another. If it is brought up by one player's actions, there's nothing dirty or tricky about that, even if that player is inclined to interpret the rule to his or her advantage.

The 'margins' category might exist in your thesis, but it doesn't really bear on the matter at hand. Even in the marginal areas, there isn't room for dirty tricks to actually exist. If you feel you have been tricked, whether it involves an ambiguous rule or not, you have only yourself to blame.

Here we are talking at cross purposes. The difference is a combination of our stance on the temporality of when a dirty trick occurs, and where responsibility lays.

I would consider a dirty trick to be both active and present tense: my opponent is attempting to try a dirty trick on me. You (here I am taking a liberty of putting words in my mouth so please correct me) consider a dirty trick to have happened (or rather after an something has occurred, I have the feeling of having been tricked).

As to responsibility, I believe that it is my responsibility to be a good sportsman (in, perhaps, a very public school sort of way since the 'spirit of the game' is a very vague sort of phrase), that my opponent should do the same. You (again correct me) believe that I should watch for anything my opponent tries and call him on it and he watch me, but that we should both play to the limit of the rules for our own advantage.

The differences in these stances can perhaps be explained by my believing a dirty trick to require malicious forethought (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/dirty+trick). So, genuinely believing a beneficial interpretation of a rule is not the same as seeing that it is ambiguous and picking the interpretation that suits you. It's not cheating because it's not against the rules, but it's still not cricket. I also believe if you ask your opponent about it first and get agreement then it is not a dirty trick. And it is to avoid people doing this that GW have the roll for the interpretation rule.


And, of course, if the rule really is ambiguous, you might even pause the game at the point at which it comes into play and work out with your opponent how you two will play it--and make sure you don't hold an opponent to a decision he made under the impression that a particular ambiguous rule would be played a different way, just as you wouldn't necessarily want to be held to playing it that way.

And I think this actually sums up my point well and is how I think things should be played.

And you are right in saying that know where ambiguous rules lie means you can disarm situation before they occur (as with knowing the rules in general). And being able to do this is a valuable skill (and is why mkerr's lists of tricks are useful regardless of who you are playing and their intent).

[Lerra]

I'm glad to see Mkerr's articles on dirty tricks and I think they do a lot more good than harm. I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of TO's and judges read BoLS, and it gives them some advanced notice about what sort of rules questions are likely to come up, too. Besides, if BoLS doesn't talk about it, some other site will, and a cheesy player will find his cheese eventually.

I encourage anyone with ambiguous rules to talk to the TO before the tournament and decide how things are going to play before the games start. If the TO approves it in advance, it's not a dirty trick imo. A good TO will make an FAQ or list of house rulings public so that players know what to expect, too. If it's made public that Deffrollas function for ramming purposes, it's not a dirty trick when your opponent rams you with one.

[Aldramelech]

If Sportsmanship scores are in effect, then yes, I smile and ACT like I am having fun, but, the entire time I am just trying to be the perfect opponent for my opponent, so when I crush him into the ground, he won't 'chipmunk' me and give me a low sportsmanship score just because he lost.



The only enjoyment I am having is the satisfaction that I got paired up with a guy who decided to take his Tau to the tournament.



Actually, yes. I spent the 80 - 150 dollar entry fee, the 200 bucks in airfare, the 400 bucks in a hotel room, and god knows how much in food to WIN. The end.



Not at a tournament. If I wanted to enjoy meeting people, I would go to my local gaming store where I hang out with people I love and enjoy. At a tournament, the collection of molecules across the table from me is only a sugary water sack standing in my way of winning first place.



No. My Dark Eldar fear no army. I AM the army people stay up late at night , anticipating and wishing they won't face.

?

Bargain? Its called eBay / Internet. You'll figure out how it works one day :)



I only feel one thing.

Sorrow... Because that must be how my opponent feels after I wipe them off the table by turn 3, and they will spend the next 3 hours before the next round sitting at the local McDonalds, crying into a 1300 calorie burger as to why they wasted money on Dark Angels.

Sorrow... Knowing that no matter who sits across the table from me at a tournament, my games will be the same one sided, boring crush victories as always... never ending win streak that never brings me any joy or happiness.



Oh you can bargain with me... Pay me cash before a match so I crush you on turn 4 instead of turn 3 so you don't look like an idiot in front of you mom as she watches the game over your shoulder, wondering why she wasted 900 bucks on plastic men her idiot son is just removing off the table.



I don't know who he is, but he sounds like an energy source. My batteries need recharging. Where can I find this 'bean' so that i can assimilate him into my neural net, granting me another few days of ongoing energy.



To win. The end.



Wrong. If I was at my local store and I was farting around for a few hours, then I would agree with you. But when you travel the country, drop mad cash, and seek the first place prize, then its all about the win.

- edit -

Roughly 0% - 100% of this post is sarcasm. If I was among adults, I wouldn't have to post this, but I am sure some tool will start a fight with me over my wordage.

I am a cyborg sent from the future to play warhammer 40k.

You should take up Golf mate :D

Edit: Apologies to Micheal Biehn fans! ;)

[Kahoolin]

@BuFFo:

OK, I get what you're saying, you play to win, you drop cash so you can win prizes, you're a vicious plastic soldier wielding killing machine who knows no mercy blah blah blah. That's all fair enough, and it was kind of funny to read I have to admit.

But why do you phrase everything in such a combative way? I'm going to walk right into this one but I have to know.

Roughly 0% - 100% of this post is sarcasm. If I was among adults, I wouldn't have to post this, but I am sure some tool will start a fight with me over my wordage. You say this. I guess I'm the tool, because I have to say that doesn't excuse this:

Bargain? Its called eBay / Internet. You'll figure out how it works one day :)That's not sarcasm, that's just an insult. There's a difference. And a smiley doesn't make an insult a joke.

Virtually every post of yours I read is dripping with aggression. I don't understand why - you're in a public discussion with strangers, most of whom seem to be adults. You sometimes make interesting and valuable points, there's absolutely no reason for you to write like some sort of sociopathic bully.

Or is it all a big joke? Damn my curiosity...

[Xas]

I think that there are two types of tricks:

those which are perfectly clear & legal in the rules but many people dont know about them. Wound allocation while widely known on the net is still some of those dirty tricks I can wrongfoot many oponents at my local store (with tyranid warriors... which have 2 wound brackets for 5 bugs but yeah, its sosososo broken :P).
this tricks are what "thinking outside the box" means and seperate beginners from good players.

if you get owned by one of those tricks its perfectly your own fault for not reading the rulebook.


then there are those tricks which are rather cheats. bending rules, missreading them or simply ignoring parts of them. "You can argue that...." usually starts this cr*p and the f-bomb is usually the best way to end the discussion.

@kahoolin about buffos post:

sometimes overexpressing a fact or feeling makes it easier to grasp for the audience. If he insults a virtual "you" in his posts it is up to every single reader if he/she accepts this virtual-you as their own personal-you.

just distance your personal-you from all those virtaul-you s and posting on boards in heated discussions becomes much more easy heartedly.

finally we are all just playing a role on the great great internet!

[Melissia]

umm... basically everyone's a hypocriteHypocrisy may be unavoidable, but some of us are certainly less hypocritical than others. Again, don't act as if your **** don't stink.



As for my own opinion? It's not a dirty trick to have a strange interpretation of the rules. A "dirty trick" is, plain and simple, nothing short of cheating-- IE, using tricks to add an inch or two to your movement, or rolling a few too many dice during your attack, or rolling all your dice for one phase at once and assigning the best dice to the most important attacks. Or all of the above, at the same time. Interpreting the rules is perhaps tricky, but by no means a trick (English is fun), and certainly it is not dirty. We must all interpret the rules from our own personal frame of reference.

[mkerr]

when i use the term "dirty tricks" for me it's more like questionable application of English. what i mean is: using a particular word (usually an ambiguous one like a, any, all, etc. in a certain place) to say something that a particular rule does something that the other player didn't know due to a difference in the reading of the rule. they are not explicitly cheating, and both parties know the rules equally well, but what one is saying is questionable or more open for interpretation/explanation than the "regular" ruling. also, one should not need to have an English and/or Law degree to explain what they mean by their interpretation of said rule.

That comment brings up an important point. When I write a tactica article, I don't have a list of "dirty tricks" that I'm trying to justify. It's quite the opposite -- I read the rule carefully and figure out how that rule interacts with other rules in the game.

So I'm not preying upon a particular word to justify a "dirty trick" -- I'm taking the best defintion of the the rule *in context* and figuring out interesting things you can do with it.


posting underhanded tactics does have the benefit of discussion, which is always good for everyone involved, and being informed is always nice. as long as one realizes any potential consequences of the action, then do as you see fit.

I think that every person that read my Callidus article (or JotWW article, etc.) will be better prepared when they play against the model. If I can eliminate a single instance of "are you sure that's how it works?" in a game, then my time is well spent.

And if I can spawn a 18+ page argument in the forums like this one (http://www.lounge.belloflostsouls.net/showthread.php?t=2962) or 440+ comments in a blog post like this one (http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2009/11/40k-tactics-using-jaws-of-world-wolf.html), then I've done my job.


I'm glad to see Mkerr's articles on dirty tricks and I think they do a lot more good than harm. I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of TO's and judges read BoLS, and it gives them some advanced notice about what sort of rules questions are likely to come up, too. Besides, if BoLS doesn't talk about it, some other site will, and a cheesy player will find his cheese eventually.

I completely agree. I know that our "dirty trick" discussions have lead to many tournament houserules, some major tournament clarifications (like the INAT FAQ) and even a few official GW FAQ answers.

[Rapture]

I think that every person that read my Callidus article (or JotWW article, etc.) will be better prepared when they play against the model. If I can eliminate a single instance of "are you sure that's how it works?" in a game, then my time is well spent.

Well said. Your articles have taught me a lot about the game. I only have the Marine and Tau codexes so it is great to be exposed to new rules for units I might face. The articles are also great for brushing up general knowledge. Every chance I have to read about reserves, outflanking, or deep striking will make it less likely for me to forget how they work.

Now, I know not to let an assassin live past turn one.

[BuFFo]

Or is it all a big joke? Damn my curiosity...

Possibly ;)


As for 'dirty tricks'... They don't break any rules, at least not intentionally, so there is nothing really dirty about them, or tricky.

A friend of mine just found out you could fire your non heavy weapons after disembarking from a moved vehicle. Did he just discover a dirty trick? No he didn't.

It seems most of you just discovered half these nifty things you can do with the Assassins, but I have been doing them for YEARS. I have been shooting my own guys with a Vindicare, and shooting into close combat, etc...

I guess what makes a 'dirty trick' is just the shock value of learning a new RULE that you previously did not know.

[MajorSoB]

I do not believe that there are any dirty tricks in 40K. there are the rules and powerful units that work well within this set of rules, period. Yes , on occasion you find players who would like you to believe that a particular set of rules was written a certain way but in most all cases it is very clear. GW does publish FAQ ( not as often as they should) that also helps eliminate the clouds surrounding some rules. In most cases "dirty" tricks seem to be good units used in an unexpected way to maximize their potential. While it not fun to get caught off guard, this game is a constant learning experience and once you encounter a certain trick once you seldom get caught a second time. If it is legal, its not dirty. If it isn't legal, it's cheating. Just that simple...