# Psychological Warfare



## Warboss Dakka (Jan 1, 2007)

Reading Uber's Mechanized Trident tactica got me thinking on this subject. What are people's feelings on psycological warfare against your opponent? Is it unsporting to mess with their mind before or during the game? I often use the same tricks Uber mentioned, screwing up my enemy's target priority by making small comments, being non-chalant about moving the biggest threats and generally disguising my in-game tactics through banter. 

I am always nice and polite, but there is some underhandedness to what comes out of my mouth. Things like, "Watch out for that Warboss, he's a real killer if he makes it to your lines," are true statements, but they are meant to draw attention away from my more fragile or more important units. Or I'll throw out a comment like, "It's too bad orks are terrible at shooting, they can't hit the broad side of a Landraider," knowing full well that my orks are going to sit back and shoot most of the game. It reinforces his notion that orks are only good in close combat and so he will deploy and plan expecting that, then find himself getting shot to pieces when it's too late to do anything about it. 

Another trick I use is to set out everything so my opponent won't know what I'm fielding until I actually deploy it. I'll have 3000 points of orks set out beside a table I am only deploying 1500 points on. Am I going to be troop heavy or set up all of those vehicles? Am I deploying a Leman Rus or a Basilisk? This strategy flies out the window if someone asks me for the army list I plan using of course, but if they don't then I don't offer it. I also don't ask my opponent for their's, since I would rather be surprised.

So, do you find these tactics to be legitimate psycological warfare? Are they mean-hearted and considered poor sportsmanship? Is banter just part of the game or something that should be reserved for tournaments? What sort of psycological warfare do you use?


----------



## Viscount Vash (Jan 3, 2007)

Most of what you mention should not work against an experianced opponent so does not matter IMO ,but it would be a bit mean to do to a Newb.

That said if you look at my Crons they all look straight up at the opposing player which a couple of players have found disturbing.

If one of our regular players has a 'fear' of a model I will of course take it and use that fear to full effect.


----------



## Warboss Dakka (Jan 1, 2007)

Viscount Vash said:


> Most of what you mention should not work against an experianced opponent so does not matter IMO ,but it would be a bit mean to do to a Newb.
> 
> That said if you look at my Crons they all look straight up at the opposing player which a couple of players have found disturbing.
> 
> If one of our regular players has a 'fear' of a model I will of course take it and use that fear to full effect.


I've found it works very well against experienced opponents, since most of my opponent's experience against orks involved an easy win by gunning down the Kan screen then boltering the boyz to death as they slogged across the board. I wouldn't use these tactics against someone new to the game, as they are confused enough already. Even experienced players will second guess themselves, especially if you start doing things they don't expect. Some of the psycology used actually banks on them being an experienced player.


----------



## Viscount Vash (Jan 3, 2007)

The important word in my post was Should not work.

Warboss Dakka typed;


> Some of the psycology used actually banks on them being an experienced player.


 That is oh so true and I hadn't thought it through that far  
On the whole as with most things when it comes to 'gamesmanship' I use as much as the guy on the other side of the table uses. If he is a git I can shift alot of frustation by being extra polite and nailing his Army


----------



## Jeridian (Jan 4, 2007)

I don't really do smack talk.

If it's a newb or inexperienced using their lack of knowledge is pretty poor IMO (assuming this is friendly games), I often explain what a unit can do when they appear not to know- I want a win through skill not through trickery.

If it's a vet, or experienced player it really shouldn't work. No really. Maybe Orks have an edge because they are rarely played against. Are we talking about experience as playing a few years, know most of the tricks- or -has played for a few weeks and used the internet to find a netlist IW's army? With the second one you may have a chance.

But if someone throws out bullshit statements I'll catch them pretty quick, and if I'm quick enough I'll probably play along:

"TBH I think your Vespid are the biggest threat not the Hammerheads..."

The false army is funny. You seriously carry double your army size to a tournament or gaming store/group just for this?

Then I ask for an army list? You refuse.
I ask to see all the models you are using for WYSIWYG question purposes? You refuse?

I find a better opponent who doesn't require base trickery to get an edge.

Of course we still banter and annoy each other, I usually overplay a unit's ability in a highly sarcastic tone so my opponent knows how shit it is
"This Grot is gonna gut that Termie".
Whilst underplaying powerful units just because I'm a pessimist (and am often proved right).
"That Termie will probably fail his save."

This is not to claw at some psychological edge, it's a game of toy soldiers and my opponents aren't idiots.


----------



## Fallen Angel (Dec 22, 2006)

"You lost yet Si?"

"Hurry up and die in combat Si"

"For crying out loud Si"

"Bet you fail that 2+ save Si"

Yeah me and Jeridian have fun doubles games......

Don't really do smack talk unless its someone i know really well. Which pretty much means everytime i play someone in Flame On. More recently abusing Longbeard in a tournament game....

"Be nice if you died now"

"Come on, have the dignity to fail one feel no pain"

"Now your tank dies!"


----------



## Jeridian (Jan 4, 2007)

I do accurately guess dice rolls- a lot.

I had Pete freak out when I guessed the two Glancing Hits against my Rhino would be 5 and 6.

Melta weapons always miss on a 1.

If you have to make just one power armour save it is always failed.

Etc.

Nothing quite as annoying for an opponent than when he gloats about the 50+ attacks and wiping out entire squads, I work out:

4's, half miss= 25
4's, half don't wound= 13
3+ save, = 3-4 dead
In quick mental maths.

And yeah, our double games are always fun- and we actually won the last one, amazing.


----------



## Warboss Dakka (Jan 1, 2007)

Experience can work against someone as much as for them if they allow their past experience to influence their judgement in a negative way. Any experienced player realizes the danger of a basilisk and many experienced players who've been playing for years will still over compensate for it. I've met more than a few players who've been playing the game longer than me who still fall for basic psycological deployment tactics. They aren't bad players, and in fact some are very good players, but their experience teaches them to be wary of certain models. 

When playing Deep Blue, a certain chess genius expected the computer to make a certain move at one point in the match. The computer failed to make the move he expected and he became flustered, which he blamed for his loss. If a single unexpected move in a chess game can make a tactical genius with years of experience become flustered and lose his focus, I have no doubt psycological tactics, even if not underhanded or mean, can produce similar effects in a myriad of good, solidly experienced opponents. 

As to my false army, I carry all of my models to every event I attend, not specifically for the false army tactic, but because I want them handy. If one of my boyz happens to loose an arm, I don't need to worry about gluing it back on right at that moment because I can easily replace him with any boy from my box. On a regular night of Warhammer gaming, I'll have 5-6 army lists created before hand that I might try out and so I need everything handy. I will always give my army list when asked and will always explain wysiwyg regardless, but many don't ask. I certainly don't ask for people's army lists. About the only thing I might ask about their army before a game is if they have deepstrikers or infiltraitors or if they have any wysiwyg issues they want to explain.

As I mentioned before, these tactics are pointless against inexperienced players as they are confused enough already. It would be cruel to make an already confused player even moreso and probably turn him or her off of the game. As far as a player with "a few weeks practice and an IW netlist" I hardly qualify that as "experienced". In tournaments where they do not require you to reveal your army list to your enemy, do you feel anyone who exercises their right not to show it to you is using "base trickery" and is a poor opponent? 

From your last statement, you seem to imply that using psycology in the game is the mark of someone desperate and that if a psycological tactic works on someone they are an idiot. I disagree on both counts, since many players use model or deployment psycology to great effect, not because they are desperate, but because they consider it as viable a tactic as any other they might employ, and because the chess player I refered to earlier in my post is by no means an idiot.


----------



## Elchimpster (Jan 31, 2007)

I don't really do the psych-out. I know a lot of guys do, I've been subject to it, and being less experienced (as a PLAYER at least) I'm a sucker for it.


----------



## the cabbage (Dec 29, 2006)

I really enjoy the banter over the table and even though I'm not inexperienced I am probably Dakka's ideal mug.

If you tell me that your one aspiring champion never dies then I am going to swallow that and spend the whole game chasing him. I will then talk about catching him for weeks not giving a toss that in all other ways I was beaten like a ginger stepchild.


----------



## Hudge (Dec 24, 2006)

I rule at that kind of stuff, if you look at my signature I have 3 armys but sometimes I use my friend's Nids. If you find out what your opponent often loses against then just having that army on the table can win it for you.


----------



## NecronNidMarine (Jan 25, 2007)

I think pschological warfare is legitimate, as long as it doesn't capitalize on the fact that someone is new to the game and your "warfare" is misguiding them on their own units.

While not completely relevant to this topic, me and several other n00b buddies(we all are noobs) played against eldar recently. Long story short, his style of playing involved "ghosting" an avatar through walls and telling me what my dreadnought couldnt do. I had made it a venerable dreadnought and, correct me if im wrong, does this not allow you to make your opponent reroll the result on all damage results, and can you not use this more than once a turn as long it is against seperate damage results?


----------



## uberschveinen (Dec 29, 2006)

That's not psychological warfare, that's just cheating.


----------



## Warboss Dakka (Jan 1, 2007)

NecronNidMarine said:


> I think pschological warfare is legitimate, as long as it doesn't capitalize on the fact that someone is new to the game and your "warfare" is misguiding them on their own units.
> 
> While not completely relevant to this topic, me and several other n00b buddies(we all are noobs) played against eldar recently. Long story short, his style of playing involved "ghosting" an avatar through walls and telling me what my dreadnought couldnt do. I had made it a venerable dreadnought and, correct me if im wrong, does this not allow you to make your opponent reroll the result on all damage results, and can you not use this more than once a turn as long it is against seperate damage results?


You are correct about venerable and your opponent was cheating.


----------



## Jeridian (Jan 4, 2007)

Agreed, the first lesson when getting into 40k is to stand your ground when you know your right.

Show them the rule, if it takes a few seconds they can wait.


----------



## MarzM (Jan 26, 2007)

Well when i'm playing, i'm usually to busy arsing about to pay attention to the psychological warfare. Although recently when playing against a Lysander wing army, for a laugh, i deployed all my infantry in a tight corner just for a wind up! 

The only thing i can't stand is an opponent calling dice. Banter, mucking around, having a laugh! Fine, but calling dice is just down right bloody rude. 


MarzM :mrgreen:


----------



## The Wraithlord (Jan 1, 2007)

One thing I find effective is to count out the dice you are going to roll one by one, especially when you are rolling large numbers. Takes a bit longer but your opponent really starts to sweat when he sees you count out 40+ dice when the Berzerkers hit


----------



## Hudge (Dec 24, 2006)

NecronNidMarine said:


> I think pschological warfare is legitimate, as long as it doesn't capitalize on the fact that someone is new to the game and your "warfare" is misguiding them on their own units.
> 
> While not completely relevant to this topic, me and several other n00b buddies(we all are noobs) played against eldar recently. Long story short, his style of playing involved "ghosting" an avatar through walls and telling me what my dreadnought couldnt do. I had made it a venerable dreadnought and, correct me if im wrong, does this not allow you to make your opponent reroll the result on all damage results, and can you not use this more than once a turn as long it is against seperate damage results?


That's just wrong, if you've taken the time to read the rules, which it seems you have someone can't go and make up rules that apply to one player, you shouldn't have let him.


----------

