Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

So out of all the tournaments I have played this was the first time I saw this happen.

And Ork player and I were fighting for 3rd place with a chance at 2nd place due to victory points. As we are playing, I hear the two guys fighting for 1st and 2nd agree to draw so that neither of them would have the chance of dropping to 3rd due to lack of victory points.

Now I have seen people concede or even drop out of a tournament when they don't have a chance, but never seen right out collusion between two players to fix the results.

How do you feel about this? Would you have said anything?

This happens a lot, usually to a lesser degree.

Often if one player is losing and it is the last game in a tournament and their opponent knows they can't win, they will let the other guy slaughter them to ma their chances of placing.

The most common way you see this is with sportsmanship scores where one player shows the other they maxed their sports and the other player reciprocates. (Another argument against these types of sports scores).

It is hard to catch, pretty much jut on the honor system. The best way to combat specifically what you describe is to not allow for ties. Structure the scoring system so that a tie is not possible and you immediately eliminate this kind of thing.

Victory Points or Battle Points?

I've heard of it happening, and it should have been obvious to the judge if they are sitting there not playing.

Note that this is a lot harder to pull off in a W/L format. Easier to enforce there as well. Flip a coin to decide who wins and each gets 0 battle points.

As a long time player of over 100 tournaments I have never seen this happen for the top three or four spots in a tounament.

I've seen messed-up scores, lying about scores, switching scores, but never letting someone off with a draw just to be sure you place in the top two spots.

If I was on the top table I'd be sure to win and take first, not hope a draw would give me it.

Mind you, I'm not saying it doesn't happen, because I'm sure it does, but I would think not very often. And if it did happen in a tournament I was in I don't think I would go back unless the TO stopped that type of thing.

Just my thoughts on this.

Game On!

By your description, it seems this was some kind of Swiss style tournament, where the two people at that table knew they were on top, likely knew their own battle points, and ultimately had a good inclination who would win the battle outright, so they intentionally drew.
Now, I have never played in a Warhammer tournament, so my experience with it is limited. I have however played in hundreds of Magic the Gathering tournaments at mid-high levels and this is an accepted (And unavoidable) practice whenever Swiss style pairings are being run. For one, simply because it is unenforceable to say it can't be done (you have to have provisions for ties in a timed tournament, and you can't literally play the game for them). If two players are absolutely sure they want to tie to guarantee some sort of Swiss placing, then it is within their rights to do so.
However, I don't feel it is the most sporting thing to do, and especially in a warhammer setting with Battle Points (a system which appears to me to discourage an Intentional Draw). I don't feel it is appropriate, but again it is a problem with the system and somewhat unavoidable even with BP.

If two players are absolutely sure they want to tie to guarantee some sort of Swiss placing, then it is within their rights to do so.

Nope, they have no 'right' to do that. They might get away with it, but it is not a right that they have been granted. In any tournament where sportsmanship is enforced (not a score, the actual idea of no cheating, playing fair, etc.), it could be easily argued they aren't really playing the game, and both deserve a zero. If you want the points from a tie, play the game and earn them. If you're one of the top 2 players at the tournament, it shouldn't be too tough.

It's not something that I thought I'd have to add to a tournament rules set, but probably should from now on.)

It happens all of the time at one of the FLGS here.

mikhaila wrote:If two players are absolutely sure they want to tie to guarantee some sort of Swiss placing, then it is within their rights to do so.

In any tournament where sportsmanship is enforced (not a score, the actual idea of no cheating, playing fair, etc.), it could be easily argued they aren't really playing the game, and both deserve a zero. If you want the points from a tie, play the game and earn them. If you're one of the top 2 players at the tournament, it shouldn't be too tough.

It's not something that I thought I'd have to add to a tournament rules set, but probably should from now on.)

Well, if you want to enforce your tournaments that way and make that distinction you also have that right. But what I meant was that in the context of a strict Swiss pairings system it is extremely difficult to police, due to you having to prove intent. My point was that while it is easy to say "Look, those people are drawing without playing a game in order to both advance" when they shake hands and call a draw without ever deploying a unit. It's much less easy to call that when time is called on round 3 and neither player has a single kill point and no solo control of an objective. Since that is a possible game outcome, you cannot dismiss them as "Cheaters" automatically, and therefore have no recourse but to accept the draw. Intentional draws in Swiss tournaments are simply concessions to this fact.

Like I said, I have no context of how this rule plays out in a warhammer tournament or among wargamers in general. But Intentionally drawing to reach day 2 of the magic world championship happens a dozen times every single year. Does that make the rule right? not necessarily, but it does show that even the highest level of tournament organizers accept that there is little they could do to stop it.

Did you ask your opponent if he heard the same thing? Did you report this conversation to the TO?
If your opponent didn't hear it or heard something different then maybe it didn't happen the way you think it happened. If you didn't report it then it's your own fault for allowing it to be done. If you reported it and your opponent backed you up then it is on the TO. If he didn't do anything then I wouldn't come back for another tourney that he ran.

mikhaila wrote:

Nope, they have no 'right' to do that. They might get away with it, but it is not a right that they have been granted.

Btw, I am sure this falls into the same boat as so many other things where GW does not have an official stance on the subject, the DCI which governs Magic Tournaments does.

From www.wizards.com/dci/downloads/MTG_MTR_1Jul10_EN.doc

2.4 Conceding or Intentionally Drawing Games or Matches
If a game or match is not completed, players may concede or mutually agree to a draw in that game or match. A match is considered complete once the result slip is filled out or, if match slips are not being used, a player leaves the table after game play is finished. Until that point, either player may concede to or draw with the other, though if the conceding player won a game in the match, the match must be reported as 2-1. Intentional draws are always reported as 0-0-3.
Players may not agree to a concession or draw in exchange for any reward or incentive. Doing so will be considered Bribery (see section 5.2).
If a player refuses to play, it is assumed that he or she has conceded the match.

The bolded part is enforced as something like prize splits or outside considerations, not simply standing in the final results (something that technically cannot be offered by either player, but is simply the result of tournament standings). So in some tournaments you are given that right, for the record.

Again, does this mean it is alright in Warhammer Tournaments, I don't know, I am just pointing to a precedent set by another major tournament organizer who uses a similar way of declaring a winner.

I have seen this in events in the past, especially with secondary and tertiary points. That is why when I run an event and make scenarios you win or lose with some that can tie. But never can both players win these points.

Hrm....

Damn me for this if you like.

In terms of sportsmanship, I pretty much max everyone, and let them see me doing it.

In terms of winning/losing, I win big or lose big. If my opponent is going to get a minor victory off me and I can't prevent it, I'll let him get the massacre. At the Saint Valentine's Day Massacre in February (Cheers to Mikhaila), I made a serious mistake against my second round opponent which cost me the game. Rather than huddle up and protect an objective or two and screw him into a minor victory, I went balls to the wall and got tabled instead. F*** your terminators, here comes my gretchin. If I'm stomping on someone and they concede when they could conceivably pull off a major loss instead of a massacred, I don't object either.

In terms of agreeing on a draw before the game because its already in the bag...not so much. I go to tournaments to find out if anyone there can beat me. I'm going to win hard, or get put down hard trying to win.

heheh Pepper I like your response. Kinda the damn the torpedoes...we are here for the fun!!!

Magister - As you've said, your experience is limited. What the DCI has ruled or not ruled really has as much to do with Warhammer as do the rules for the PGA, NFL, or world poker championships.

I've experienced the situation in magic, and by the DCI that's how it works. I'm fine with it, that's how MTG is set up.

But in no way do I think that it should carry over into anything else. Magic isn't Warhammer.

It's much less easy to call that when time is called on round 3 and neither player has a single kill point and no solo control of an objective. Since that is a possible game outcome, you cannot dismiss them as "Cheaters" automatically, and therefore have no recourse but to accept the draw.

Heh. Right.) Two people get to the top table of one of my GT's and pull something as obvious as that, and I'll damn well call them on it. What are they going to do? Skip shooting phases? March units to the board edge and go to ground. It would be obvious as hell, to everyone in the room. It's not an unavoidable problem, it just means a TO has to work a bit harder, maybe camp up near the top tables, and specifically tell the people doing it to play the game, or both get a zero.

In my mind, part of the tournament is playing the game. Not just calling it a draw. If you can't play the game, or agree to not play the game, it isn't a tie, it's two zeroes.

JMHO, other people may have different opinions. But I never want to see Warhammer tournaments turn into what I sometimes see in CCG tournaments, so I can't really take what happens in a MTG tourney as any example of what should happen in Warhammer.

Dash-What you did isn't really throwing a game, it's just throwing your army at your opponent.) Always fun, and sometimes it even works. Your opponent still has to beat you, and wouldn't it be funny if the gretchin got a few 6's to wound and the terminators rolled all 1's?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Fishboy wrote:heheh Pepper I like your response. Kinda the damn the torpedoes...we are here for the fun!!!

Best way to play orks, or warhammer in general.)

I heard this:

"Well we already agreed to a draw, so........"

I looked around to even see if anyone had heard it, but everyone else including my opponent were doing their own thing.

The full ramifications of agreeing to the draw didn't really hit me till later when the Ork player and I were just talking about the tournament in general. By then it was water under the bridge and just something I will keep an eye out for later.

I bring it up here just to see the frequency and response.

mikhaila wrote:Magister - As you've said, your experience is limited. What the DCI has ruled or not ruled really has as much to do with Warhammer as do the rules for the PGA, NFL, or world poker championships.

I agree with your sentiment, except that none of those run Swiss style tournaments on table tops in local gaming stores. I am merely pulling from a source that DOES have official standardized tournament rules and is as similar to the situation as possible.

mikhaila wrote:I've experienced the situation in magic, and by the DCI that's how it works. I'm fine with it, that's how MTG is set up.

But in no way do I think that it should carry over into anything else. Magic isn't Warhammer.

I never said it is or that it should follow the same exact rule set, they are very different games with very different rules. However, the tournament structure is similar (even the same in some cases) and therefore I think the tournament rules would have similar ramifications.

mikhaila wrote:
It's much less easy to call that when time is called on round 3 and neither player has a single kill point and no solo control of an objective. Since that is a possible game outcome, you cannot dismiss them as "Cheaters" automatically, and therefore have no recourse but to accept the draw.

Heh. Right.) Two people get to the top table of one of my GT's and pull something as obvious as that, and I'll damn well call them on it. What are they going to do? Skip shooting phases? March units to the board edge and go to ground. It would be obvious as hell, to everyone in the room. It's not an unavoidable problem, it just means a TO has to work a bit harder, maybe camp up near the top tables, and specifically tell the people doing it to play the game, or both get a zero.

Again, you are assuming you would be able to tell just by looking at the end game situation and I can assure you it won't always be so cut and dry. I agree with what you mean about a TO taking steps to avoid this behavior if they set their mind to it and I think it would make sense assuming that is part of your ruleset. I was just thinking in the macro sense. with multiple top tables and large scale tournaments, or broad standards for any and all TO's.

mikhaila wrote:In my mind, part of the tournament is playing the game. Not just calling it a draw. If you can't play the game, or agree to not play the game, it isn't a tie, it's two zeroes.

JMHO, other people may have different opinions. But I never want to see Warhammer tournaments turn into what I sometimes see in CCG tournaments, so I can't really take what happens in a MTG tourney as any example of what should happen in Warhammer.

I 100% support your opinion and your right to have it, just realize that it doesn't necessarily make the actions of those two players at the OP's tournament in the wrong. If it was not specified in the rules whether ID's were allowed, frowned upon or outright banned, then they were within acceptable decorum as determined in rules for other, similar tournament structures.
I guess my point is, there needs to be an official stance on this or else it is open to interpretation.

Reecius wrote:This happens a lot, usually to a lesser degree.

Often if one player is losing and it is the last game in a tournament and their opponent knows they can't win, they will let the other guy slaughter them to ma their chances of placing.

The most common way you see this is with sportsmanship scores where one player shows the other they maxed their sports and the other player reciprocates. (Another argument against these types of sports scores).

It is hard to catch, pretty much jut on the honor system. The best way to combat specifically what you describe is to not allow for ties. Structure the scoring system so that a tie is not possible and you immediately eliminate this kind of thing.

In Battlepoint games collusion is easy with or without ties. In W/L format it's much more difficult though.

I recently played in a FLGS tourney where placing was first decided on W/L record and ties between the W/L were decided by killpoints taken throughout the tournament. I'm not sure how I felt about this since certain armies bring more kill points to the table than others. If I play a round vs BT Terminator Army w/ 7 KP at 1500pts, then even if I win most of my games I run can lose just cuz the other guy that went 3-1 got to fight meched up MEQ lists w/ 11-15KP. Fortunately I managed to hang on to second place. My final game was against said opponent, but I had 3 really good games before I got to round 4. I realized I was loosing, but changed tactics to focus on KP after his termies had a solid hold on the objectives.

Something else that made me wonder about the system is what do you do when a player concedes a match to the other. Or a player gets a bye round because someone dropped out (Granted these people are getting the bye because they are at the bottom of the ranking anyhow). How many KP do you give him? A win w/ 0 KP is worthless unless you are winning all of your games,

I 100% support your opinion and your right to have it, just realize that it doesn't necessarily make the actions of those two players at the OP's tournament in the wrong. If it was not specified in the rules whether ID's were allowed, frowned upon or outright banned, then they were within acceptable decorum as determined in rules for other, similar tournament structures.
I guess my point is, there needs to be an official stance on this or else it is open to interpretation.

Most people would disagree with you that what they did was wrong, and it's not within acceptable decorum. You think it is because, by your own words, you come from a MTG background and have little experience with warhammer tournaments. So NO, I will never realize, condone, or accept that what they did wasn't wrong, and would never allow it to happen at a tournament I was running.

There will never be an 'official stance' on this from GW. But at independently run tournaments, the TO's word is the final say, so that really is the official stance. And not everything needs to be written down to be enforced. Many types of bad behavior could pop up at a tournament, and players warned, reprimanded, or booted for that behavior. The TO doesn't have to make a list of the 7 deadly sins and 777 minor ones. I don't have a rule about not stealing your opponents wallet, using loaded dice, throwing dice, throwing your opponents model, or threatening to beat up your opponent. But over 20 years of tournaments, I've seen them all happen.

This situation may seem more civilized, just two people figuring out how to max their winnings and split the pot. But it's something that sits wrong with 99% of other players, especially the ones seeing it happen.

Always a problem, accentuated by "margin of victory" rewarding tournaments, or by tournaments where scoring vp/etc. has a dramatic impact upon the standings after all rounds are complete.

Very hard to resolve, especially in larger events (too many people to track), except by having a format that doesn't allow it to have a major influence. When using one where it can, you simply have to be more vigilant (not necessarily change your format to suit the cheaters, ofc).

Play the game or take a double loss. I mean, really.

Although maybe the trouble is with the scoring system...

Thaylen wrote:I recently played in a FLGS tourney where placing was first decided on W/L record and ties between the W/L were decided by killpoints taken throughout the tournament. I'm not sure how I felt about this since certain armies bring more kill points to the table than others. If I play a round vs BT Terminator Army w/ 7 KP at 1500pts, then even if I win most of my games I run can lose just cuz the other guy that went 3-1 got to fight meched up MEQ lists w/ 11-15KP. Fortunately I managed to hang on to second place. My final game was against said opponent, but I had 3 really good games before I got to round 4. I realized I was loosing, but changed tactics to focus on KP after his termies had a solid hold on the objectives.

Something else that made me wonder about the system is what do you do when a player concedes a match to the other. Or a player gets a bye round because someone dropped out (Granted these people are getting the bye because they are at the bottom of the ranking anyhow). How many KP do you give him? A win w/ 0 KP is worthless unless you are winning all of your games,

if the event includes victory points or kill points or something else were the qulaity of win is a factor in final placing. a person should never concede if he has a chance of preventing max points being given. do so cheats other players in an event.

finish the game always should be the rule.

Here is what it came down to:

Had they not agreed to draw, the loser of that game would have had the same W/L record as the winner of the winner of our game. 2nd place would have then been decided by victory points tally over the course of the tournament.

So by agreeing to the draw, they guaranteed that neither of them would have to tally victory points against the winner of my game.

They locked 2nd place out by agreeing to the draw and then played out their victory points to see who got 1st.

mikhaila wrote:I 100% support your opinion and your right to have it, just realize that it doesn't necessarily make the actions of those two players at the OP's tournament in the wrong. If it was not specified in the rules whether ID's were allowed, frowned upon or outright banned, then they were within acceptable decorum as determined in rules for other, similar tournament structures.
I guess my point is, there needs to be an official stance on this or else it is open to interpretation.

Most people would disagree with you that what they did was wrong, and it's not within acceptable decorum. You think it is because, by your own words, you come from a MTG background and have little experience with warhammer tournaments. So NO, I will never realize, condone, or accept that what they did wasn't wrong, and would never allow it to happen at a tournament I was running.

Your tournament, your rules. I am not arguing that at all.

mikhaila wrote:There will never be an 'official stance' on this from GW. But at independently run tournaments, the TO's word is the final say, so that really is the official stance. And not everything needs to be written down to be enforced. Many types of bad behavior could pop up at a tournament, and players warned, reprimanded, or booted for that behavior. The TO doesn't have to make a list of the 7 deadly sins and 777 minor ones. I don't have a rule about not stealing your opponents wallet, using loaded dice, throwing dice, throwing your opponents model, or threatening to beat up your opponent. But over 20 years of tournaments, I've seen them all happen.

There should be a list of rules, even if they are broad, to discourage people from doing all of those actions, so I believe we are disagreeing about this. Even a rule such as "Be polite and respectful to your opponent and always ask before touching their models" means people have been warned against all of those actions indirectly. The fact that you don't think a TO should put those into writing is 1) coming from your own personal experience 2) is rather naive 3) means you essentially use your judgment to determine who is cheating and who is not, which though you may believe is fair, is actually the opposite of being fair. Arbitrary rules are not good for an organized tournament environment imo. The TO can put a simple sentence into his rules to make Intentional Draws illegal, and if he doesn't it feels like an oversight to me, as it should be stated expressly what his views are on it (since as you have pointed out, there is no official stance but his own).

mikhaila wrote:This situation may seem more civilized, just two people figuring out how to max their winnings and split the pot. But it's something that sits wrong with 99% of other players, especially the ones seeing it happen.

What was the line about statistics and the internet?

I think Malfred captured my point better then I have in one sentence. The problem is with the scoring system. That was essentially my point all along. I understand not feeling this was sporting, or ethical and even agree with that. My point was simply that a tournament structure based on Swiss scoring/pairing system will always be open to this sort of "collusion" between players, and despite your claims that it is easy to spot and easy to prevent I don't believe it always is. So because of that I simply believe it needs to be specified in the rules, one way or the other, the stance of the TO on Intentional Draws, and if it is not then it is open to interpretation by players and that is never a good idea.

Dashofpepper wrote: If I'm stomping on someone and they concede when they could conceivably pull off a major loss instead of a massacred, I don't object either.

I've seen this before, and I don't like it... like you said before, if I'm losing I will sometimes take a huge risk of getting massacred instead of just playing to a minor loss, depending on where I'm at in the standings (usually not very high!).

But if I'm getting totally stomped like in the above example, I'm going to make the guy earn his massacre and not just shake hands. I feel like it's my job to try to preserve some points rather than give him a larger win than he should have had... and to at least play out the game to the end.

Of course, I don't see anything wrong with your accepting their concession (what can you do, force them to finish?), I'm talking about the person on the losing end. I feel that it's somewhat poor sportsmanship not to finish a game where you're losing badly. Gotta take the lumps and all that...

As to the OP of agreeing to a tie beforehand, that's much worse! The TO, if he'd realized it, definitely should have stepped in and either forced them to play it out, or if he'd thought of this ahead of time, perhaps simply made draws in the final round impossible, as has been suggested above...

RiTides wrote:
But if I'm getting totally stomped like in the above example, I'm going to make the guy earn his massacre and not just shake hands. I feel like it's my job to try to preserve some points rather than give him a larger win than he should have had... and to at least play out the game to the end.

Do you think there is a difference?

If a player has NO choice in a game and is GOING to lose regardless of what choices he makes based on the course of the game, the only difference I see between concession and intentionally giving up the massacre is an extra 20-45 minutes on your feet, a shorter break, and less socializing. I love playing at tournaments, but I *really* cherish the new friends I make, socializing, seeing other peoples' armies, watching other peoples' tactics; If its turn four and my opponent has 10% of his army left and I'm GOING to table them....I'll ask, "Do you want to keep going?" It sometimes feels like rubbing it in, and personally, rather than finishing the tabling, I'd rather have a drink with them and socialize.

Personally, I never give up when I'm losing (though it rarely happens). I'll make an exception if its really bad and my opponent would rather start a new game. I have had opponents in the past who would quit one turn 2 if the battle wasn't going his way. Victory (or at least a draw in some cases) can be pulled from the jaws of defeat in many cases. You learn way more when you play out those final few turns. And if you are losing that badly it shouldn't take long anyhow. But enough of my off topic ranting.

This sort of thing can really only be a factor in smaller events though. If it's a three round event, and two wins and a draw will take both first and second, that means that nobody else there had enough battle points that a massacre would have leapfrogged those below. That, more than anything, is what keeps this from becoming an ethical problem.

Dash wrote:If its turn four and my opponent has 10% of his army left and I'm GOING to table them....

This is different than your earlier comment that I was referring to:

Dash wrote:If I'm stomping on someone and they concede when they could conceivably pull off a major loss instead of a massacred, I don't object either.

I don't think someone should concede when the result of the game could still be effected (such as turning a major into a massacre, or vise versa) in a tournament. It's hard to know if placings will be affected or not by doing so... and imho, it's not fair to others who played out such a game and only got a major win instead of a massacre.

As to your reply above... again, I don't mind your accepting their concession if they offer it. I don't even mind your offering if there is no doubt they will be tabled (i.e. you must be fairly near the end, anyway).

If the result is in question, though, and it could be a difference between a major win and a massacre... yes, I think the best and fairest thing to do is for the player who is behind to continue to play the game out to its' end, rather than conceding.

As Polonius points out, in larger events it might not be such an issue... although it still does affect the placings. Also, in the last round of an event (such as the NOVA tournament, where I believe you weren't able to play the last game) I can see this being reasonable if placings are not affected, since people need to travel back home, of course! But these are special circumstances... I do not think it should be the norm.

However you want to look at it, nothing is guaranteed. Just because it looks like a massacre does not mean the dice won't suddenly go hot for person about to get massacred. Maybe that person can pull out a minor/major loss instead. Either way trying to get as many points as you can in a round should be each players goal. When you stop trying to do that, you are no longer participating in the event.

Giving up more points than is in your interest to do is therefore cheating. I don't see a rule in the rulebook allowing for early termination of a game. If I were running an event, everyone would finish their games right to the end or be ejected from the event. Purposely losing/drawing is also behavior that affects the standings in general - especially if the games are scored more than simple W/L/D.

Man up and take your lumps. Make your opponent earn that win.

In a friendly game, it doesn't matter. In a tourny, you gotta put your game face on and play till the fat lady sings.