"When do you reveal rules?" Topic

OK, this is mostly about Warhammer Rules but other games have special rules too.

When do you reveal them to your opponent? For example you get magic blasted for 6 casualties and say: "OK, I ignore magic casualties on a 4+"

Your opponent now says, "Well if I would have known that, I would have targeted these guys instead." To which you respond: "You didn't and we have been through all the die rolls and you know the outcome; you can't go back"

Personally, if I care, I ask like "I'm going to Magic this unit; do they have any shenanigans?"

I'm in total agreement. You should play the situation and not the rules. It should be fun, not a legal exercise.

Hand over an army list and explain it before the game. Warhamster has so many special rules to work with, you need to get them out in the open first so you can play the game right.

It depends with how much each opposing force is supposed to know, or in context should be able to deduce about its foes. So it's heavily game-dependent. I think the best thing is to make it clear that there's a possibility that any given unit might have unknown resistances or abilities which will be revealed in combat— so ya takes ya chances!
If players realize this, the "if I had known" whine becomes self-reflected, and not against the game, other players, or the GM.

I like both players to know all the rules.
The great reveal leaves a bad taste.
It is tricking the opponent.

martin

I'm with the Lead Minister and Martin. If both sides are not aware of the capabilities of the units, you ought to have a GM.

We pretty much always have a GM and when we play with a new set of rules we take a little time pre-game to give people the down-low on how to play

It depends on the game and the players. I've enjoyed some games where surprises were expected and planned for (or at least reacted to). For Warhammer / competitive games, both players should be aware of the ins and outs.

Heck, one game was basically "I want to move that unit here and shot at those guys" and the GM would roll the dice. The GM was the only one that knew the bonuses/penalties, the players concentrated on ordering their troops about.

I'm with Robert Piepenbrink on the value of a referee.

I don't typically run games with magic, but even in non-magical settings, each side may not know all of its opponent's capabilities. Intel can be wrong or manipulated, for example.

So when I'm writing orders for each side, I try to set the players' expectations: "Intel indicates that the enemy may have deployed countermeasures to our communications jamming technology", for example.

Any military probably has a pretty good idea what it doesn't know about the other side -- Rumsfeld's "known unknowns". Set that up upfront, and the players will react with better humor to the unknown unknown if it appears in a game.

I don't think unknown unknowns should appear often. Maybe once in several games.

I agree that id depends on the game.

Also, the OP is not talking about a "rule". It is talking about a property of a unit. It is an important distinction.

Knowing that some unit may have a saving throw (or whatever it is called) against a type of attack generally (not always) should be common knowledge. Rules are about how the dynamics of the milieu work.

Either or both of knowing that this unit has the capability to employ that rule, or that their value is 4+ may or may not be known to the opponent.

Beyond not treating rules as rules and characteristics as characteristics, having "too many" rules makes a gaming system unattractive to me. For me, too many is not just a measure of the weight of the rules printed on 20 bond paper, but the percentage that you use in any one game.

If there is a lot to a game, then there's a lot to it. Fine. If there are volumes and volumes of rules you won't use in a scenario, you may be overloaded (and possibly poorly designed).

To paraphrase what was said above, you should be playing the scenario (they specific tactical situation presented to the players), not the rules.

I just came back from a QILS game with three veteran and three novice players. The in- and post-game discussion was about the scenario, not the rules or the rolls. That's what I like.

Anything that would be known or understood by the player's table-top counterpart should be made known to the player. In many cases what is known by the table-top commander may exceed what is known by the player. I expect that an actual naval commander understands the working of ships much better than I do.

In fantasy or science fiction games there is a lot of knowledge that we do not have in the real world. I can read manuals on Soviet tanks and tank doctrine of the 1970s. The combat capabilities of the Empire of Helium lie outside the reference books. A general in Middle Earth would know that orcs and trolls do not fare well in the sun. A player new to the game might not.

It would seem an unfair gotcha! to inflict death on the troops of an orcish commander who marched his troops out into the sun just because the player didn't know the rule. The precise spells known by a wizard, the load out chose=n for space fighters, and similar things that would not be known to our tabletop counterpart need not be disclosed.

I remember the unpleasant surprise of the "Hungry Maw" in Warhammer. This would devour one spell being cast on the unit carrying it. Its presence was not revealed until it was used. The first time I encountered it as new player seemed quite unfair. No one had told me such a thing existed. They just gave me an army, quick overview of what it could do and had me set to. Once I know that the Hungry Maw existed and was a potential threat I could plan accordingly. It was still an unpleasant surprise when it ate my best spell, but knowing it was possible made it seem less of a cheat.

A game like Warhammer, or D&D has the challenge of many, many specific edge cases. Edge cases often scattered across several expensive rulebooks. I play for fun. I don't have the time or money to collect and study all the books. At least when I am playing historical I can be reasonably certain that at the core an infantryman is an infantryman regardless of the uniform he wears. I n fantasy? Who knows?

Anything that would be known or understood by the player's table-top counterpart should be made known to the player. In many cases what is known by the table-top commander may exceed what is known by the player. I expect that an actual naval commander understands the working of ships much better than I do.

In fantasy or science fiction games there is a lot of knowledge that we do not have in the real world. I can read manuals on Soviet tanks and tank doctrine of the 1970s. The combat capabilities of the Empire of Helium lie outside the reference books. A general in Middle Earth would know that orcs and trolls do not fare well in the sun. A player new to the game might not.

It would seem an unfair gotcha! to inflict death on the troops of an orcish commander who marched his troops out into the sun just because the player didn't know the rule. The precise spells known by a wizard, the load out chose=n for space fighters, and similar things that would not be known to our tabletop counterpart need not be disclosed.

I remember the unpleasant surprise of the "Hungry Maw" in Warhammer. This would devour one spell being cast on the unit carrying it. Its presence was not revealed until it was used. The first time I encountered it as new player seemed quite unfair. No one had told me such a thing existed. They just gave me an army, quick overview of what it could do and had me set to. Once I know that the Hungry Maw existed and was a potential threat I could plan accordingly. It was still an unpleasant surprise when it ate my best spell, but knowing it was possible made it seem less of a cheat.

A game like Warhammer, or D&D has the challenge of many, many specific edge cases. Edge cases often scattered across several expensive rulebooks. I play for fun. I don't have the time or money to collect and study all the books. At least when I am playing historical I can be reasonably certain that at the core an infantryman is an infantryman regardless of the uniform he wears. I n fantasy? Who knows?

This is the best thread I've read here in years.

This is an excellent discussion. As a teacher, I don't like to hand my students "gotchas" So I'm very patient and explain a lot the first time around (in gaming too).

I agree, special rules should not be a surprise in the game. I understand the idea/desire/want to have gotcha-special unit rules, but they only work once. The next time you feature such a unit in a game, the 'surprise' is gone, and I say, Good riddance to it.

It's not that much fun, for me, and for my fellow players, to learn that there is some special rules for a given unit. It typically wrankles us a bit. Once in a while, I can put up with it, but it should be limited, or it can really turn people off on the units and the players who employ them.

I prefer fun games based on player tactics, and bold moves, and good 'ol random die rolls. Gimmick tricks get old, fast. Cheers!

I ran a Viet Nam game where both side could interdict at various times and in various ways. I let everyone know upfront. It was good fun. No one felt bamboozled because everyone was bamboozled.

I think most of us are making valid distinctions here, and we seem to have three types of game.

1. If the rules are a single thing--a single book, X many pages of paper--players should be expected to know them, or be treated as novices.

2. If there are things a player is not supposed to know, as in Rotundo's example, that needs to be explained going in, and a GM seems necessary.

3. But the GW and others situation where different armies have rules contained in separate volumes--or magazine articles, or cards, or…confers a considerable edge to the player more engrossed in that particular game, or willing and able to spend more money on it. Should a player be expected to purchase every potential source of special unit/character rules before entering a 40K tournament? (What would that cost, these days?) But I think if that's NOT specified as a requirement, It's probably best to discuss special unit/character capabilities prior to set-on. This may not be "realistic." Certainly new weapons and unit types show up in real wars. But it's probably the best way to have a game both players enjoy.

a GM seems necessary.

Helpful, but not necessary.

The Nazis have the 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 of spades. Prior to the game, they are shuffled and one is removed. The Nazi player(s) knows which four they ends up with. The cards are placed on the east side of the board where ever they want, including stacking them. They move like regular units. If active (revealed) resistance units have LOS to Nazi cards, they are revealed and replaced with the indicated number of units.

The Resistance player(s) gets all the hearts (civilians), including the royals. Shuffle, pull five. Take the A (ambush 3 people), 2, 3, 4, 6, and ( of clubs (resistance fighters). Shuffle, remove three, and add them to the hearts. Distribute around the town in buildings on the west half of the board as you want.

Shuffle the remaining royals, and the Resistance gets two secretly in their "hand". They can be played whenever the Resistance wants. KS – replace one Nazi with a resistance fighter (traitor), QS – One Nazi group can't skips a turn (distracted by femme fatale), KD – send two Nazi figures off the board (bought off) QD – replace QH figure with a resistance fighter, KC – Resistance player(s) give movement order to one Nazi unit (subterfuge), QC – Resistance unit adjacent to at least one civilian can move through a wall (aiding and abetting)

Nazi cards that LOS to civ/resistance cards, reveal them immediately (mid action or movement) and replace with the appropriate figures.

Score: Resistance fighters who move off the east edge of the board vs Resistance fighters killed (double points for captives, if your rules allow that). For each killed civilian, roll a die. 1-3 Nazis lose a point, 4-6 Resistance loses a point.

Everybody knows all the rules (not identified in the scenario, but we recommend QILS), but players have some known unknowns.