Opinion on Dirty Tricks

[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 [URL="http://www.thefreedictionary.com/dirty+trick"]malicious forethought[/URL]. 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

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 hypocrite

Hypocrisy 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 [URL="http://www.lounge.belloflostsouls.net/showthread.php?t=2962"]this one[/URL] or 440+ comments in a blog post like [URL="http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2009/11/40k-tactics-using-jaws-of-world-wolf.html"]this one[/URL], 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.