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.

skkipper wrote:to be honest in 2008 at the hard boys semi's me and a friend faced off on table 1 in game 3. this was for all the marbles. the mission was capture and controlish.

We both placed the objectives so they could be easily claimed by either. basiclly setting up somebody was going to win and walk away with the big prize and probaly not draw and have the big prize slip to another table. We both played hard for the objective and I lost. would you consider this bad? we both tried to win at all cost but we did go out to screw the other person out of the prize.

I think that you guys both played the game. You set up the game so that one of you would win big, but you still played it out and let the game be decided by the dice and tactics, not agreement.

What would be troubling, I think, would be if one of you were sitting on a single objective but contesting two others,but then took a dive and allowed the winning player to score more objectives and win bigger.

Manimal wrote:If I was in a position where I am going to win 1st or 2nd place by tying my last game, I will likely play that game for a tie. In other words, I would play very conservatively making it hard for me to win but equally hard for my opponent to win that particular game but making it very likely for me to achieve my larger goal.

Of course, as would many people.

Manimal wrote:Intentional draws acknowledge this fact and skip the details of the draw.
While playing a game where the (likely) outcome is already known is still fun, it is really not necessary if both players are playing for a draw.

The key word here is likely. You already stated that you are in the tournament trying to win one of the top prizes. Since the outcome is only "likely", you need to play out your game and earn that draw. Who knows, maybe you opponent will have a change of heart and try to go big for the win or go home, like skkipper described doing.

I had a TO once start to accuse me of Collusion when during the final game of a tournament, I was paired up on the top table against the guy I drove down with. We were the only two non-locals, he was playing `Nids, I was playing Necrons. The comment came on the second turn when my Necron phalanx had not yet started to advance on the Tervigon/Gaunt/Fex brick that was sitting on an objective in the center of the table. I had to explain to the TO that I'm Necrons, he's `Nids, advancing towards him is basically forfeiting the game until I've thinned his numbers with my shooting.

I don't know if this is even ethically wrong. It happens in card game tourneys quite a lot. It can be annoying to have your opponent turtle the last round causing you to be unable to take first, but it's still legal.

There's nothing wrong with "turtling" in the last round. It's the "collusion" that people were reacting to... i.e. agreeing to a result ahead of time without playing out the game.

As Aduro experienced, this isn't acceptable for warhammer tournaments (at least, none I've heard of and none so far that people have mentioned in this thread). A shame that he accused you of that on turn 2, however . Sounds a bit like sour grapes... and you had every right not to advance and play the game all the way through to a draw if you'd wanted to... just not to have agreed upon that result beforehand!

That's exactly it RiTides. Sure, its legal to play in such a way to as promote a draw. That is even a good strategy in a lot of situations.

But fixing the result of the game before it happens can't be called legal in any way. One player taking a dive on their own accord is very cheesy, but so long as its not agreed to before hand would be very hard to identify and stop (is the TO gonna play the game for the diver?), and therefore is "legal". A player who takes a dive should be ejected from the event and barred from returning.

Sportsmanship exists for a reason. Sportsmanship is not a metric in virtually any other game, yet in 40k we use it. The reason is simple, we want friendly competition. If you can't be a good sport and take your lumps when the time comes, you have no business in an event that holds sportsmanship as a measurable quality of a player. Same goes for fixing games - there is nothing sporting about fixing a game before it happens.

Let me put forth a hypothetical example:

It is the last game and by tying both my opponent and I will take a prize winning slot.

The mission is cap and control (or whatever the 2 objective based mission is called). Since I am going to be playing for the tie I deploy all of my forces to protect my objective. My opponent makes the same desicion and deploys all his/her forces to protect the other objective.

I have no motivation to go attack the other objective, as it makes more likely for at least a tie not to happen. Likewise my opponent would not have a motivation to attack my objective.

Unless my opponent or I decide to change our strategy and attack the other objective there is no need to play this game.

This seems like exactly the situation where an intentional draw is reasonable. If it is in the interest of both players to draw and both players play exclusively to draw it is difficult to imagine how the game would not be a draw.

If a player changes thier mind and goes for the win then the game should be played; but if both players are very disiplined and are only going to play for the draw what is the point?

I understand that this is particular case where the mission is easy to draw, but I have played in a tournament where the last mission was exactly like this.

sidenote (I was not in a position to use this strategy)

To clarify my position, I don't really care if intentional draws are allowed or not as long as the rule is stated. I just don't think allowing IDs is as big a deal as other people seem to.

Also, I do not come from a MTG tournament background, so it isn't only MTG people who think IDs are ok.

Your scenario is wierd. If the two hypothetical players were going to both place with a draw, it would seem likely that at least one of the two players would benefit from trying to get a win.

Either
A) one player is first and a draw would cement his position. The opponent should therefore be able to steal first by giving the leader a loss.

B) Neither player are first. In this case, going for a win and hoping the leader suffers a loss is in their best interest.

Either way, at least one of the players should have it in their best interest to play for a win. Instead of castling up on their objective until the very end, the player who has it in their best interest should make a late game push to contest the opponent's objective since theirs is not in danger.

Another way to look at this is that its entirely possible for one army to shoot the other off the table. How likely is irrelevent, and therefore the game should be played out.

Any way you look at it, the game needs to be played out with both players acting in their own best interest. That is how competition works. If you are not interested in competing, don't go to a competition.

Dracos wrote:

Any way you look at it, the game needs to be played out with both players acting in their own best interest. That is how competition works. If you are not interested in competing, don't go to a competition.

That's just like, your opinion man.

Seriously though, it has already been mentioned. What if the second player guarantees second place with a draw, but might drop to third or even 4th and out of placement with a loss. It would be in his best interest to play for a draw, especially if he feels the match up is poor for him.
The flip side also makes sense, as you have pointed out the person with the better record is in danger of the opponent winning and leap frogging him to 1st. Though he likely won't fall out of placing if he loses, he very well may see his prize drop substantially. Would it not be in his favor to play for a draw as well? Again, it gets even more logical if the match up is poor for him (or is at least perceived that way).
If neither of these scenarios are how you would approach those situations, that's fine, everyone is different. Also, if you don't feel people should be allowed to skip playing a long boring game if they want, that is also valid. But there is a logical reason for Intentionally Drawing a game, and as I said in my first couple of posts, it is very difficult to prevent without specific rules to enforce.

I am honestly really surprised that this has even come up in warhammer tournaments, as it seems that the majority of tournaments are small and use substantial amounts of tie breakers to distinguish final placing. It would seem that the event of an Intentional Draw would be terribly rare regardless.

I guess I should clarify: there is nothing wrong with playing for a draw.

But skipping the game shouldn't be an option IMO. Neither should agreeing with your opponent that the game should end in a draw beforehand and cooperating with the opponent to make it a draw.

To draw a parallel, in chess you can play moves that are known to lead to a draw. If you opponents also desires a draw, he can respond in kind to your moves and lead the game to a draw. But they still have to play the game, they can't just agree ahead of time that the game is a draw.

I have chess playing experience and so seeing one or both of the players playing a defensive game isn't unusual. The key point is that they play the game. Things can happen during the game that may lead to one or the other player making a mistake or catching a break (good or bad). As was stated before you can still snipe at your opponent without exposing yourself to any more risk than you have by being in your tactical position. However, maybe you get lucky and destroy a key vehicle or you weaken an opponents unit to such a point that you can break his position. That's why the game should always be played. Things happen when luck (dice) is involved and with that things change as well.
Not playing the game seems to be counter intuitive on a number of levels. First, aren't you there to play games of warhammer? If not, then why come in the first place? I think that most people would welcome the challenge/risk of losing their position to prove that they are as good as they think they are.
Second, playing the game should allow you to consolidate/improve your position in the rankings. So why not play it out?
Third, you are doing a disservice to the other players. If you and your opponent have locked up your positions of first and second places then play for the fun of it. If there is risk for one or both of you then face the challenge. Most people that I know who would enter a tournement want the prize but want to win it not be given it. To me anyone who would rather take the safe (assured) route when it comes to winning anything other than a very large monetary prize is cheating themself as well as the rest of the field.

/rant

Dracos wrote:
To draw a parallel, in chess you can play moves that are known to lead to a draw. If you opponents also desires a draw, he can respond in kind to your moves and lead the game to a draw. But they still have to play the game, they can't just agree ahead of time that the game is a draw.

Ironically, Chess was in my mind as well when I was typing up the situation of playing for a draw, I guess its one of the few games you do that in (Curling being the only other one I can think of, off hand).

The difference between the situations is two fold however, imo. 1) Drawing in Chess essentially does not advance either person, they essentially just call that game as a wash and play another game instead, which does not happen in Warhammer. Therefore, there would never be a reason to decide to draw before hand. 2) Chess is a pure strategy game where both players begin the game with identical parody and move from there. Your chances of winning or losing are not hinged on any luck factors, only skill. In warhammer, you first and foremost give up a substantial amount to luck, so while you may believe you can win, you also realize that you very well could lose over the span of 1 or 2 turns, even if it was unexpected. Now I see how people would say that is the exact reason you MUST play the game, and that is a fair point of view, I am simply pointing out the difference between the games. Secondly, you know that certain armies may match up poorly for your army, or that your army is poor in certain scenarios. Both of these factors imply there is a higher likelihood of "Draw" being a positive outcome to a game, where as in chess it is not. Both of these factors mean decided on a draw ahead of time is a more appropriate strategy.

The thing is, that although the game is different the effect on a tournament is the same. The draw neither advances nor declines either player in relation to each other. But against the field, a draw allows others to gain ground. In a last round situation, if you know you are far enough ahead, playing for a draw in either game has the same tournament effect.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:I have chess playing experience and so seeing one or both of the players playing a defensive game isn't unusual. The key point is that they play the game. Things can happen during the game that may lead to one or the other player making a mistake or catching a break (good or bad).

I think this sums it up well, and interestingly, it seems that both sides of the argument agree with this. Perhaps there was a misunderstanding in the terminology (since again, it isn't familiar to me in a warhammer setting, or to most players I would think). If by "intentional draw" you mean:

Playing out a game with the intent to draw, not having conspired with your opponent to achieve this result, but just through your strategy.

Then of course, this is fine. It's assuming the game will be a draw and thus not playing it, or much worse, conspiring to create a draw with your opponent and so not playing the game in good faith (i.e. with full effort, taking the win if it is presented to you via a mistake, etc) that I, and most warhammer players as far as I can tell, would have issue with.

It's completely foolish to blame the players for being put into a situation where the only rational decision is to not bother trying to do better than a draw if there's no benefit. Sort of like when you're taking a course and discover that you have enough points to skip doing an unpleasant assignment.

Both players look at the situation, deploy their forces, and chant five times in succession, "I'm done with my turn." and then roll to see if the game is over. The two players have now played out their game.

If that situation isn't desired, the scoring system should be changed to that it isn't the optimal solution. Because the alternative expects the people playing the game to deliberately act against their own interests.

Or you could just not award prizes at all and people just play for bragging rights and pure competition.

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.

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.)

Yep. I had it happen once, and only once. I allowed it, since I hadn't had any rules in place beforehand that said they couldn't do it, but you can be sure that they were added that night. Pretty simple fix, an intentional draw is a loss for both parties. It isn't fair to the other people playing, IMO, it's almost cheating. It's acceptable amongst the MTG players, but that's a WAAC environment.

This thread is dumb, particularly the last page. It is pretty simple:

You playing for a draw and turtling down to avoid a loss and settling for 2nd place rather than 4th is OK. Your opponent may just try and crush you per usual. It is not agreed before hand.

You and your opponent meeting prior to match and discussing how it is best that you both play for a draw is not. That is not different between meeting before hand and deciding it is better if person A wins to maximize points. It is match fixing. That is cheating.

If you cannot see the difference between the two approaches in a competitive environment then you suck and shouldn't be allowed to play in tournies.

As a long time tourney player, I'm both surprised and unsurprised at all of the righteous indignation on this thread. On one hand, I had thought the tourney scene was improving, on the other, I remember this debate is taking place on the internet.

I feel like the community over the last year has been making positive steps towards maturity and becoming more accepting of the idea that the guy across the table from them may not perceive the game in the same way, and thats okay. Yet this post is everything that I thought we'd been moving away from.

I've played in countless tournaments over the last ~10 year so, as well as gamed casually pretty much every weekend, and have never seen intentional draws as an issue. I play magic and other game systems as well, however my primary is, and always has been, warhammer. What bothers people so much about intentional draws? If I decide to take one at my table, its a decision enabled by a series of wins (hopefully well earned). If you didn't want to get bubbled out by someone higher ranked then you in the tournament, you should have scored higher or played better, plain and simple. I know games involving dice and pairings may not be such a simple situation of "just win and you won't have to worry about it", yet my feeling stands. If I'm on the cusp and the players above me ID, I'll be bummed, but I'll blame no one but myself. Both were ranked higher, and that's how it goes.

I think the people stating things like "the entire community feels x way" "this isn't acceptable in warhammer" "no one does this in x system" need to get a reality check. Your set of observations is generally: localized and a small set. You have no right to tell someone else how to play the game. The only person who does is the TO, and only at their event.

If someone came up to me in a tournament and stated "Did you just ID?! You're a cheater, we're DQ'ing you" or "You can't ID, you have to play it you cheater!" I'd likely never return. If it's a rule, fine, but I'd say theres likely far more people than you think who have absolutely no issue with it, and don't take "this tournament has sportsmanship" to mean "you're expected to know what I consider sportsmanship and to conform to it, or else".

However, an acceptable solution, since if a TO had to spell out every situation prior to the event it would waste their already stretched time, is for them to monitor games. If an ID comes up, to inform the players that they're sorry, but the tournament is not allowing ID's, and they need to play the game. I think the way this message is delivered is the key, the words "You're a cheater" need to be slung far more carefully. [This is based on the principle in place that TO's and judges have the right to make a ruling already at an event]

This is not directed towards Mikhalia, who is an all around good guy and TO (I used to play at Showcase before moving), and spells out his expectations pretty clearly prior to tourney play. However I think the line is this: If you want to call something cheating, you need to define your rules of what constitutes cheating more clearly.

Yea, and I guess the rules don't say I can't pay each opponent 20$ to allow me to win, so its okay, right?

edit: To put it more simply, we can't write down every single thing you can't do. That is impossible.

But the rules tell you what you can do. If there is a provision in the rules that allow you do ID, then so be it. Until that time, it is not permitted.

Yes, it is cheating. The tournament says you are paired with X person for a game using Y scenario. If you don't play the game you have not conformed to the structure of the tournament, and have acted outside of it. Therefore it is cheating.

Its sorta amusing people can justify cheating on any level because its just a warhammer game

Remove the term warhammer and insert "superbowl" or any sport people get REALLY SERIOUS about

If two teams conspired at the superbowl Im sure someone would get *murdered* over it..

Cheating is cheating.. the specific game is irrelevant

You shouldnt *need* rules to know what constitutes CHEATING.. If you, do then you're either insanely naive or trying to find ways to cheat.

vhwolf wrote:Or you could just not award prizes at all and people just play for bragging rights and pure competition.

That would be my preference.

IMO it is the prizes that spoil the enjoyment of the game for its own sake.

I don't have any problem with people playing to a deliberate draw in order to cement their positions as 1 and 2, rather than risk dropping to 3. There's no way you can force people to play, or play the game agressively if they don't want to.

As for collusion, by analogy with the idea of collusion among players/teams to boost the friends up the rankings by dodgy play or sports scoring etc. I suppose there is some case there. It isn't a major one considering the theoretical two guys are already 1 and 2 on their merits. I think too much fuss is being made about it, typical polarisation of debates on the Internet

No doubt the next time this happens, there will be a conversation like this:

Player A: Hmm, if we draw this game, we will end up first and second, while if we play agressively, there is a chance we could lose our position.
Player B: Indeed. What a pity it is against the rules to call a draw. I suppose we shall just have to play out the game, in order to avoid collusion.
Player A: Yes. Off we go then.

They play a cautious, drawing game.

Kilkrazy wrote:

vhwolf wrote:Or you could just not award prizes at all and people just play for bragging rights and pure competition.

That would be my preference.

IMO it is the prizes that spoil the enjoyment of the game for its own sake.

I don't have any problem with people playing to a deliberate draw in order to cement their positions as 1 and 2, rather than risk dropping to 3. There's no way you can force people to play, or play the game agressively if they don't want to.

As for collusion, by analogy with the idea of collusion among players/teams to boost the friends up the rankings by dodgy play or sports scoring etc. I suppose there is some case there. It isn't a major one considering the theoretical two guys are already 1 and 2 on their merits. I think too much fuss is being made about it, typical polarisation of debates on the Internet

No doubt the next time this happens, there will be a conversation like this:

Player A: Hmm, if we draw this game, we will end up first and second, while if we play agressively, there is a chance we could lose our position.
Player B: Indeed. What a pity it is against the rules to call a draw. I suppose we shall just have to play out the game, in order to avoid collusion.
Player A: Yes. Off we go then.

They play a cautious, drawing game.

At least in that case, there's a chance for the Prisoner's Dilemma to kick in.

Player A: Wait, what if Player B ISN'T going to try to draw? I better start playing
more aggressively.

Player B: Wait, what if Player A ISN'T going to try to draw? I better start playing
more aggressively.

In the morning the cops will find their bodies with their hands clasped tightly
around each others throats.

The Prisoner's Dilemma game only applies to situations of zero information exchange between the players.

In a game of 40K (or WHFB), an aggressive move by one side will be seen straight away, and responded to the next turn.

You and your information!

How would you people who have no problem with an arranged draw feel about the following situation:

There are 2 players one in 3rd place and one in 4th. The 4th place player has no chance to move up the ladder so he says to the 3rd place player I'm going to give you a massacre with maximum score. That way you can possibly win or at least you'll end up in 2nd place. The 3rd palce player agrees.

Would you be OK with this or not. The conceding player is not losing anything nor is he gaining anything. The 3rd place player is merely taking advantage of the situation. Would it make any difference if the 2 players were friends and didn't know the 1st or 2nd place players?

Leo_the_Rat wrote:How would you people who have no problem with an arranged draw feel about the following situation:

There are 2 players one in 3rd place and one in 4th. The 4th place player has no chance to move up the ladder so he says to the 3rd place player I'm going to give you a massacre with maximum score. That way you can possibly win or at least you'll end up in 2nd place. The 3rd palce player agrees.

Would you be OK with this or not. The conceding player is not losing anything nor is he gaining anything. The 3rd place player is merely taking advantage of the situation. Would it make any difference if the 2 players were friends and didn't know the 1st or 2nd place players?

This is the most common form of collusion. Rather than lose with one or two units still on the table, a player concedes and gives total points to their opponent. As I said, this is the most common form of collusion I would wager.

Yes, but in this instance the players agree to a massacre before the game even begins. Which, to me, is a totally different situation.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:How would you people who have no problem with an arranged draw feel about the following situation:

There are 2 players one in 3rd place and one in 4th. The 4th place player has no chance to move up the ladder so he says to the 3rd place player I'm going to give you a massacre with maximum score. That way you can possibly win or at least you'll end up in 2nd place. The 3rd palce player agrees.

Would you be OK with this or not. The conceding player is not losing anything nor is he gaining anything. The 3rd place player is merely taking advantage of the situation. Would it make any difference if the 2 players were friends and didn't know the 1st or 2nd place players?

This to me is different, it's one thing to call it a draw, if no one plays, no one can win or lose (in my opinion). An intentional draw is one thing, giving away full points is another. Thats what concerns me more in tournaments, is people who just get all pissy and give up 30 minutes into the game if it isn't going their way, and the other guy gets full points.

For all of you that continued to say "i don't care what you think, it's cheating, cheatings cheating".

It. is. not. cheating.

Here's where I think you're going wrong:

"Cheating(a): violating accepted standards or rules"

You're making the assumption that everyone accepts "intentional draws are cheating" as a standard. They don't. And not everyone knows that people even care about it. Most of you have said "well if they played it out and played TOWARDS a draw it would be different".

How? In chess playing towards a draw is very easy, and no different, So you'd not call it cheaitng if we both set up, moved models, but refused to kill each other and just both turtled and traded useless shots? I think I can predict a reaction of "no thats not what i meant!" So what was really meant was "they have to play it out like I want them to".

Tough crap. It's not your game.

targetawg wrote:
You're making the assumption that everyone accepts "intentional draws are cheating" as a standard. They don't. And not everyone knows that people even care about it. Most of you have said "well if they played it out and played TOWARDS a draw it would be different".

How? In chess playing towards a draw is very easy, and no different, So you'd not call it cheaitng if we both set up, moved models, but refused to kill each other and just both turtled and traded useless shots? I think I can predict a reaction of "no thats not what i meant!" So what was really meant was "they have to play it out like I want them to".

Tough crap. It's not your game.

Are you just being obtuse?

One person setting up, not taking risks and aiming for a draw because it will benefit them but with the intention of winning if a good opportunity presents itself through luck or if your oppontent makes a mistake you can capitalize on is soooooooooo very different to meeting with you opponent before the game starts and saying "lets play today and aim for a draw to make sure we secure 1st and 2nd".

The fact that many people cannot see the difference staggers me. Scenerio A is tactical game play and acceptable, Scenerio B is collusion to fix a result and cheating - pure and simple.

You chess example sucks because whilst you can play for a draw your opponent can recognize what is happening and can a) combat it or b) accept the draw as a less risky thing. In a chess tournie, part way through the game, it is not infrequent to offer your opponent a draw and again, even if you are winning at the time, it is a decision between a guarenteed number of points v's potential to make a mistake and get zero. Sometimes, even with a narrow lead, you make take the draw.

Here is the big diff. When you first sit across your opponent you have no idea what is going to happen. Deciding a game result before you sit down with Chess will get you banned.