Competitive: Becoming the dark side of the game?

[.Torch.]

Afternoon all,

 

I stumbled upon this article on Facebook published by Bell of Lost Souls.

 

https://www.belloflostsouls.net/2019/12/warhammer-40k-getting-that-extra-competitive-edge.html

 

Now, the article is not particularly well written as a few people have pointed out. But that is not the point I am going to make.

 

The article above appears to imply that there are acceptable forms of cheating with the competitive scene of 40k:

 

"A player will bid on the measurements by placing the unit, measuring, and declaring what the measurement is. He then waits to see what how his opponent will react. Will he also measure to see if it is the same or will he simply accept his opponent’s word? How this is answered will let the player know how far he can go with the measurements, if he so chooses."

 

Now this to me would seem like a deliberate deception. When playing competitive I will always watch or check measurements, but you should be able to expect your opponent to measure fairly. The article refers to this method as 'bidding', a phrase I have not heard of. This method of 'bidding' to gain victories appears to be aimed at taking advantage of things your opponent may have missed. This in itself I would be fine with, as latching on to your opponents mistakes is part of the game. However, what I am not okay with is deliberately miss measuring to see if you opponents will notice, something that this article seems to encourage.

 

The article does close with a line about helping players identify 'bidding' in their games of 40k. However this means little to me as it has already actively encouraged the technique in its above paragraphs. The real catch is that it appears to be written by a member of :cuss Radio, who is also a judge at the LVO.

 

What do you think of the article?

 

What do you think of 'bidding'?

[Captain_Krash]

I don't understand why it is referred to as "Bidding" seems like angle shooting to me. Trying to get one over on your opponent an inch or 2 here and there. As long as your opponent doesn't check what does it matter? 

 

That all sounds just about 100% cheating. I don't know who would ever agree that this is any sort of acceptable in any game setting be it casual or competitive play.

 

Krash

Edited December 14, 2019 by Captain_Krash

[Brother Carpenter]

Plain old cheating.

Wgen I still played tournaments I had an opponent who knew all my rules but tried to rotate his wave serpent over the nose thus gaining approx 10' extra charge range. I did call a referee for that.

[Raven1]

I think it's more aimed at declaring intentions and playing as intended. Ergo a unit is say more than 12" away and you cant declare a charge on it or it is X" and you cant shoot it.

 

The idea being I think is if you make a mistake in measurement in the movement phase your opponent can't punish you for it because it wasn't your intention.

 

Personally I dont agree with it because if you want to truly be "competitive" then your mistakes are yours to eat and your intentions aren't as important as your actual actions.

 

I have heard a couple of high ranked competitors talking about declaring intentions and playing as intended to be gentlemanly and speed up the game so chess clock time isn't wasted on it. I wouldn't call it cheating but it certainly I think it dulls the edge on "competition" when you dispel the unknowns of battle.

 

I have a pretty competitive meta I play and I haven't had anyone spring anything on me with out my knowledge. It hasn't been like you can't declare that charge because it was my secret intention. It's more like I'm placing the models more than 1" away from the terrain so as not be to charged by making to the terrain piece and that's more of an income the table gets bumped or a model gets knocked over and has to be replaced.

[Noserenda]

Nothing to do with Competitive play, more to do with some people are cheaters and will always cheat, just that some of them apparently do a little test first to see how closely their opponent is watching them. Which is why favourite game and sportsmanship awards remain important to tamp down exactly this kind of  nonsense, at least if they have to make some efforts towards their opponent its not so egregious. 

[.Torch.]

Fairly new to the competitive scene and have found it pretty toxic. I agree that the rule set is not written to be competitive and there are lots of grey areas.

 

I just thought it was an interesting post as it appears to be written by an LVO judge and seems to actively encourage underhanded play. The LVO is a huge event, so I thought the source might be worth discussing, evidently it is not.

[Warhead01]

Sounds like a bunch of cheating to me.  It just sounds like a means of abusing sportsmanship, the oll' kindness is weakness shtick. 
I wont play with people like that. 
BoLS is just as bad as I remembered it was. 
 

[Triszin]

ya, thats unsportsman conduct, and cheating, that isn't competitive

[Gederas]

"Becoming" the dark side? Oh my sweet summer child..... It was never not the Dark Side. Actually no. The Dark Side can be used for good. Competitive play (specifically the ITC), and especially a certain type of player it attracts, are about as good for the health of the game as a malignant, terminal tumor is for a person's body.

 

I have not seen anything GOOD for the game come from the type of people ITC attracts, but I have seen a lot of BAD things from it.

 

Fairly new to the competitive scene and have found it pretty toxic. I agree that the rule set is not written to be competitive and there are lots of grey areas.

I just thought it was an interesting post as it appears to be written by an LVO judge and seems to actively encourage underhanded play. The LVO is a huge event, so I thought the source might be worth discussing, evidently it is not.

That's because the competitive scene IS toxic. Hilariously so. Using exploits, rules lawyering to gain advantages.... It's a nuclear waste dump in terms of toxicity.
 

Also: Bell of Lost Trolls is a rag. Them and Clickey Baits (Spiky Bits)

Edited December 14, 2019 by Gederas

[Sandlemad]

Feels like a way of re-framing cheating as simply another aspect of the game, a sort of neutral skill like listbuilding. A slick bit of rhetoric but comes off as mildly sociopathic.

Edited December 14, 2019 by Sandlemad

[Grimdark_Garage]

Tabletop games attract people who I would say are less than comfortable with other people and society in general.

 

I've seen this plenty over the past 20 years. Those who see themselves as not "winning" in other areas of their life and therefore use the non-confrontational traits of others in this hobby to their advantage. It's a shame but from my experience quite apt.

 

Of course, the VAST MAJORITY hobbyists are awesome and I now tend to play those in my own age group who have a family etc and are therefore much more level headed.

Treating a mistake as just that, a mistake. And even though both sides are willing to go back and correct that mistake, the one who made that mistake rarely does as they will wear the mistake as a gentleman.

 

Tabletop games are a gentleman's game. There is a degree of trust in our games unlike other competitive games. Those who abuse that trust SHOULD be called out on it and have their opponent simply end the game.

[Brother Tyler]

The term "bidding" in the article is simply a euphemism for taking a risk - gambling - in a minor manner at first in order to gauge the opponent's attentiveness. When done deliberately as described in the article, this is cheating. If the opponent lets things go, the cheater will then escalate the cheating, stopping at a point where it is calculated that the opponent will call the behavior. It's a risk/reward analysis.

 

Cheating can take place in so-called "friendly" games (or any non-competitive environment) just as easily as in competitive play, though. This type of behavior is much more prevalent in competitive play where there is a tangible reward.

 

Don't assume, however, that every competitive player engages in this sort of behavior. Similarly, it's foolish to assert that nothing good can come from competitive play. When the spirit and letter of the rules are followed, competitive play can help to identify areas that need to be improved (in terms of rules clarity, rules completeness, army list options, tactics, etc.).

 

The type of behavior identified in the article exists in any game. People cheat in Candyland, Monopoly, tag, professional sports, etc. This is nothing new, and it won't change. All you can do (assuming you're not a cheater yourself) is cope with cheating effectively; and if someone is a known cheater, don't play with them.

 

 

 

 

All of the above said, there are some settings in which rules aren't enforced in an absolute strict manner. In general, this is in "friendly" settings where competitiveness takes a back seat to the "fun" aspects of the game. In such settings, players might be fine if models/units are moved a fraction of an inch further than the limit; or they might not insist on WYSIWYG; or they may allow non-standard units or unofficial rules. When the setting/group allows and when the liberties are taken in the name of fun instead of winning, it isn't "cheating" (though some forms of cheating can and do still take place in these settings).

[CaptainMarsh]

That is a disgusting article. The fact such activity is promoted by the author is very disturbing and speaks to a mindset that if I knew existed in a player would result in me avoiding playing games with them. Not because a fear of a loss, but because I'd have to play their turn as much as I would have to play mine.

[toaae]

"Becoming" the dark side? Oh my sweet summer child..... It was never not the Dark Side. Actually no. The Dark Side can be used for good. Competitive play (specifically the ITC), and especially a certain type of player it attracts, are about as good for the health of the game as a malignant, terminal tumor is for a person's body.

 

I have not seen anything GOOD for the game come from the type of people ITC attracts, but I have seen a lot of BAD things from it.

 

Fairly new to the competitive scene and have found it pretty toxic. I agree that the rule set is not written to be competitive and there are lots of grey areas.

 

I just thought it was an interesting post as it appears to be written by an LVO judge and seems to actively encourage underhanded play. The LVO is a huge event, so I thought the source might be worth discussing, evidently it is not.

That's because the competitive scene IS toxic. Hilariously so. Using exploits, rules lawyering to gain advantages.... It's a nuclear waste dump in terms of toxicity.

 

This is such a gross, toxic, ignorant post. The fact that there are members of the community that feel this way says more about them then it does the "competitive scene". I've never seen anywhere near the level of vitriol from competitive players to non as I have from the narrative/open/casual gamers to the competitive. It astounds me that anyone could say something like this with a straight face, so wrapped up in their own self-delusion as to decide that an entire, major part of the community is somehow a "malignant tumor" on the hobby. Come down off your high horse, built as it is of misunderstanding, poor judgement, and a general lack of experience.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

I think he has a fair point. It’s time for GW to stop catering to the competitive crowd.

[Closet Skeleton]

 

The article above appears to imply that there are acceptable forms of cheating with the competitive scene of 40k:

No it doesn't. Its not talking about cheating. Its manipulative and not very sportsmanlike but doesn't tell you how to cheat.

 

Being ultra obsessed with making every measurement exact can be way more unpleasant behavior than anything this article is talking about.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

Measurements are really big deal. Anytime it’s important both players should check.

[CaptainMarsh]

The way I see it, lying intentionally about how far you need to go for a charge is as much cheating as rolling a pile of dice needing 3+ to hit and quickly picking up some 2s and then rolling wounds before your opponent has time to realize what happened.
Or lying about rules and strategems your army and models have if your opponent doesn't know your army well enough. They are all shades of the same color, and it is the color of cowardice, cheating, and poor sportsmanship.

That a judge would write this article and sanction the behavior speaks ill of both himself and any event he officiates. 

[Rik Lightstar]

 

 

 

 

The article above appears to imply that there are acceptable forms of cheating with the competitive scene of 40k:

No it doesn't. Its not talking about cheating. Its manipulative and not very sportsmanlike but doesn't tell you how to cheat.

 

Being ultra obsessed with making every measurement exact can be way more unpleasant behavior than anything this article is talking about.

Today I learned:

 

Playing a game by the rules and expecting your opponent to do the same is potentially more unpleasant than cheating*

 

*cheating being the act of willfully not following (or breaking of you prefer) the rules of a fame or sport.

 

You're wrong, and bad, and should feel bad.

 

Rik

Edited December 15, 2019 by Rik Lightstar

[Iron Father Ferrum]

Making sure your opponent abides by the rules of the game isn't sharpshooting or rules lawyering or turtling or any other derogatory gamer stereotype you want to fish out of your hat. If you're breaking the rules intentionally, it's cheating. Period. Calling someone out because they want a fair game played by the rules is the height of hypocrisy.

[Interrogator-Chaplain Ezra]

The responses in this thread is a nice reminder of the less obvious reasons for my total avoidance of the comp scene.

[Gederas]

"Becoming" the dark side? Oh my sweet summer child..... It was never not the Dark Side. Actually no. The Dark Side can be used for good. Competitive play (specifically the ITC), and especially a certain type of player it attracts, are about as good for the health of the game as a malignant, terminal tumor is for a person's body.

 

I have not seen anything GOOD for the game come from the type of people ITC attracts, but I have seen a lot of BAD things from it.

 

Fairly new to the competitive scene and have found it pretty toxic. I agree that the rule set is not written to be competitive and there are lots of grey areas.

 

I just thought it was an interesting post as it appears to be written by an LVO judge and seems to actively encourage underhanded play. The LVO is a huge event, so I thought the source might be worth discussing, evidently it is not.

That's because the competitive scene IS toxic. Hilariously so. Using exploits, rules lawyering to gain advantages.... It's a nuclear waste dump in terms of toxicity.

This is such a gross, toxic, ignorant post. The fact that there are members of the community that feel this way says more about them then it does the "competitive scene". I've never seen anywhere near the level of vitriol from competitive players to non as I have from the narrative/open/casual gamers to the competitive. It astounds me that anyone could say something like this with a straight face, so wrapped up in their own self-delusion as to decide that an entire, major part of the community is somehow a "malignant tumor" on the hobby. Come down off your high horse, built as it is of misunderstanding, poor judgement, and a general lack of experience.

Okay, yeah. My response was a bit of a knee-jerk reaction. I'll admit that.

 

However, that being said: It's not that narrative/open/casual players who continually search for, find and exploit rules loopholes that make the game unfun to play. It's not narrative/open/casual players who make strong combos and abuse them to hell that cause blanket nerfs to happen. It's not narrative/open/casual players that made 8th edition into "how many command points can I get and spam to win games?". It's not narrative/open/casual players who have the gall to ask "Can I name a Space Marine Chapter and Imperial Guard Regiment both 'The Emperor's Finest' and have auras and abilities that specify <CHAPTER> and <REGIMENT> affect both?" (because you cannot tell me that's a case of an unclear Rules-as-Written/Rules-as-Intended).

 

That's what my problem is.

 

You say I'm on a high horse, but the fact is this: ITC players, ARE a problem for the game. Maybe not all competitive players, but the ITC is a cesspit that attracts the legendary "that guy" in droves.

 

We've even heard of the problem players that it attracts here, just ask _duz about his "illegal, modelling for advantage" Shrike model.

[Ishagu]

I think the ITC is starting to bring out some unfortunate aspects of the hobby.

 

The problems are thus:

 

-Too much focus on results and not the hobby

-Bad mission design (better than what GW used to do, but this is no longer the case).

 

ITC is fostering a community similar to one found in video games. Looking up combos online, must win games, etc, etc

 

More egregious than this, however, is the mission design which encourages spam lists. It reduces the qualify of the game in every sense. Break it down and you realise there is only 1 actual ITC mission. It fosters spam lists because you CHOSE what to score in every game. People run static gunlines and focus on "kill more, score more" or spam flyers and focus on objectives around those. The CA missions are far, far better.

 

When these aspects are the primary focus you end up fostering a very specific type of community - Netlisters who only care about winning. The love of the hobby, the friendly social aspect, the Co operative nature of games, etc are all left behind.

 

I think for next year I will start avoiding ITC events, and perhaps try to help with organising tournaments and days built around a more balanced CA mission design with greater rewards on love of all hobby aspects.

Edited December 15, 2019 by Ishagu

[MARK0SIAN]

Some of the balance issues identified by tournaments have led to an improved game which is good. I also believe that tournaments are a big driver behind the speed/regularity of balance updates this edition, which is also good.

 

However I believe tournaments overall (and particularly ITC) have been allowed to have too great an influence on the balance and direction of the game. This article highlights why that’s not a great result as it just leads to system where everyone is trying to squeeze out every ounce of advantage because winning is all that matters.

 

At this rate, with the combo building, CP spamming nature of the game people are going to start looking back on 7th edition death stars as more balanced and enjoyable than what you’ll end up facing in 8th.

 

GW needs to stop seeing matched play as ‘tournament mode’ and instead balance for a general matched play audience.

[Ishagu]

The solution might be a GW designed tournament ruleset and standard.